Korean Job Discussion Forums

[Demophobe]

Well, I still maintain that characters appearing and moving about isn't involving the RAM too much. Unless the character detailing is really high and the in-game settings are high, the characters moving around and actions are GPU/CPU dependant.

The RAM will come into play "skinning" the charachters, and thus, could be the source of the problem. Then again, it really isn't the RAM, but either the GPU/CPU is taxed or the memory bus. As I said, the memory bus is one of the first things that used to get crippled on cards. It seems these days, one really has to look low to get a 128 bit bus...most mainstream and higher are all on a 256bit bus, so, the bus at 256bit, is kind of out of the problem picture.

I would then look at the core or GPU on my card as the problem. Nowadays, it's the thing to turn off features, such as pixel pipelines or vertex and pixel shaders in order to bring the card down in performance to match the cost. So, if there is a lot of slowdown when characters appear, the GPU/CPU is having a problem.

A 128MB card will never "shine" in todays' games. It can't do a high resolution, AA or AF and can't provide enough room for large, detailed textures for environments or skinning. I would say that a 128MB card will be ok at 1024x768 with no AA, perhaps AF, in modern games.

So, I don't think it's to do with the RAM at all...your slowdows or jerkiness when the action gets heavy on the screen. It could be though, if the details are set too high in the game.

Looking for bottlenecks is essentially what we are doing here. From disabled features on the core, a small memory bus to inadequate RAM, and finally, people turning up the settings too high that will make all the problems more noticeable. IMHO, there really isn't a "not enough RAM", in the case of 128MB cards. Yes, newer games are loading incredibly large textures, bitmaps, lightmaps, shaders, etc..., but taking a modest approach to the settings can usually eliminate any problems.

People just push it too high. I do too...take GRAW, for example.

I have an aging 9800XT/256MB. Trying to run this game at 1024x768 with everything on as high as it can, makes it slow, but playable. I haven't come to a huge firefight yet, which will crush the GPU, nor taken a chopper ride over the large, incredibly detailed city, which will again crush my GPU trying to fill the 256MB of RAM fast enough.

The 9800XT 256MB was overkill. The core couldn't possibly keep up with that amount of RAM, and thus, the vs.128MB benchmarks never really showed any difference at all against the 256. I think the same for modern cards going to 512MB RAM. It's just too much...but not for long. We are right on the edge of it now. The nex gen of cores will indeed use it well.

Right now, I think the 7900 series with 256MB or RAM are pretty balanced cards, as are the latest high-end ATIs. More memory bus is needed for the move to 512MB, IMHO. Going to 512MB of RAM with a 256bit bus doesn't make sense. If the GPU could use a 512bit bus or not, I don't know. The lower you go with graphics cards in terms of cost, the less balanced the card becomes; bottlenecks are introduced to make you upset enough to drop a few more bucks.

Maybe I didn't answer your question at all...maybe this is a rant. I gave up on the computer race a while ago, as it became obvious to me what was going on, especially with graphics. Software has no trouble using whatever Nvidia/ATI can produce, so it comes down to hardware. Hardware is expensive and is updated more than the games it's running. It really is a farce, though with the 7900, things are finally getting to the point where I will think about jumping in again. A SLI 79XX will do well for a long while....or will it?!

I think I will look at an HDTV and an XBOX 360.

EDIT: Just saw your last post. A 128MB card vs. a 256MB card...exactly the same, but only less RAM. High resolution, AA, AF, detailed textures, shading...all will have to be reduced or not used on a 128MB card. The RAM just can't hold that much info, creating writebacks to system memory or the HDD pagefile (if you haven't enough system memory) and this will in turn, cause slowdowns in gameplay.

Bottom, bottom line: Games will look better on a 256MB card. You can crank up the eyecandy and not have such a performance hit.

[Cigar_Guy]

I think I've got it figured now. My original reasoning was omitting one fact--video card manufacturers aren't going to give you a processor with a rating of X if the RAM is unable to support X's capabilities at a reasonable level. Put simply, what I thought the problems with a 6600 card and 128 megs of RAM would occur if they built the same card with only 64 megs of RAM.

So here's my next question (which I think I'll make into a new thread)--how do you determine whether the problem is your graphics card or your monitor?

[cubanlord]

wow..you guys are getting far beyond my intel. I will just keep reading and continue to educated myself.

[eamo]

[Cigar_Guy]

Alright, I guess I'll elaborate a little more on my last point regarding the monitor.

So far, we've identified three major components on the video card: the processor, the memory bus, and the RAM (the memory itself). The RAM handles the volume of data that you're looking at on the screen, which let's simplify as such:

Memory Used = [(Size of Object 1) x (Level of Detail of Object 1)] + [(Size of Object 2) x (Level of Detail of Object 2)]...

Now, from this we established that a lesser quantity of RAM can handle a small quantity of figures (walls, soldiers, spaceships, whatever) at high quality levels, or a large quantity of figures at lower quality levels. The problem is when you want to run a game with a large number of figures (like, say, Battlefield 2) at higher quality levels, that's when you need a lot of RAM.

Of course, this high level of RAM isn't going to help if you have a crappy processor. As our good friend Demophobe has rightly noted, video card manufacturers aren't going to overload a card with RAM beyond what the processor is capable of actually rendering into images.

The key to the whole thing is (like just about everything else with a computer) that it's all a big chain, and it's going to run just as fast as the weakest link... which brings me to my monitor.

I went for a fairly budget machine when I built my desktop--I'm not going to be here forever so I figure I don't need a cutting edge machine. Plus I did it in such a way that I still get to tinker with it (the Chaintech VNF4 Ultra is an excellent mobo for about 90k). Anyway, we had an extra monitor lying around school that I was able to borrow when I built the thing. Initially, I considered it a stopgap measure--something alright that I could use to install Windows and the like, as I had been told that it was broken--display everything with a bluish tint somehow. Anyway, I plugged it in and it worked great, and so I've never felt the need to change.

Of course, with my upgrade to Win x64 (filled with bugs though it is, it's giving me great performance on games I'd already been happy with), I'm wondering now if the weak link in my machine in the monitor. Anyone have any ideas about how to test this? I'm hoping there's some software or some such out there that might help, but I wouldn't be completely averse to hauling my desktop in the back of a cab to Yongsan if someone knows a good tech somewhere.

[Demophobe]

Well, the monitor either works or it doesn't.

What size is your monitor? What is your desktop resolution? At what Hz?

All CRT monitors have a maximum resolution, typically 1280x1024 @ 60Hz for a 17". 1600x1200 @ 60Hz for a 19". Bigger monitors can display higher resolutions at higher frequencies. now, the "xxHz, means the refresh rate, or how many times the picture on the monitor is redrawn by the graphichs card.

There is a ceiling on this, a maximum the monitor can do. The higher the resolution, the lower the Hz, or refresh rate. The card has to put out far more information to the monitor at 1600x1200 than 800x600, so it follows that it will push out less frames full of more information, or more frames with less information. The maximum refresh rate is determined by three factors: 1) The rate your video card supports, 2) the rate your monitor supports, and 3) the resolution your monitor is set at.

So, your monitor can either do a certain resolution at a certain refresh rate, or it can't and you get nothing on the screen...or a mess of colors...

Games often give the option (enable V-sync) to lock the refresh rate at 60FPS...this is where the eye can't see the "flicker" anymore, and at 60 frames per second, the monitor is doing 60Hz...drawing 60 new screens per second. A game looks pretty fluid at this framerate. When they fall below this, one percieves the stutter.

Older monitors have trouble with high refresh rates at high resolutions. A 6 year old 17" monitor may no longer be able to max out. One may have to settle for a lower resolution at 60Hz or something.

So, high resolution, lower Hz, or refresh rate. Low resolution, higher Hz, or refresh rate.

None of this applies to LCD monitors. They are all capped, don't really use "Hz" and only really look good at one resolution...the "native" res for that monitor.

Man...what a jubled post! I've been trying to get this posted for 3 hours with far too many interruptions! Dang "work"!

Hope this makes some sense. Bottom line...the monitor can handle the resolution or not. You will know if it can't...it just won't work. If it's straining, you may hear a very high-pitched whining sound...change the resolution fast, before you damage it~!

[Cigar_Guy]

Here's the thing: the monitor can handle the resolution, but I wonder about the real quality of the image. It's a CRT monitor running at 1152x864 (it's the highest it'll go at 75 Hertz).

I understand about resolution and hertz and the rest of it, but my concern is whether the image itself is up to snuff. I'm not sure how much there is to quantify this stuff, bu I've seen side-by-side monitors (on an actual dual-screen setup) with (on paper) identical stats putting out two pictures of definitely different quality. Even fiddling with all the monitor settings and whatnot, one monitor held the edge in terms of the crispness of the images and brightness overall.

I guess my real question is about testing--anyone have any idea somewhere I could take my system to plug it in and see the output I get from other models?

[Demophobe]

I guess it's a 17" then? 60Hz too hard on your eyes?

What kind of monitor is it? Make and model would be good.

I googled "monitor test" and came up with a few hits. Dunno if it will help. The "Nokia" test will show you a few things...it's free and small.

My buddy is a digital photographer and has some really expensive monitor calibration tools. He does my monitor once every couple of months for me.

I guess the big thing is how do you percieve it? Are the colors bright and vibrant, are fonts clear and easy to read...sharp enough?

How old is the monitor? This is the most common reason picture quality degrades on a CRT. An aging CRT goes fuzzy...hard to read the fonts, and the picture looks anti-aliased...not a bad thing for gaming! I had a really old Daewoo 21" that was like that. A bugger for reading, but great looking in games.

I have a 21" Samsung right now. Great monitor and does 1600x1200 @ 85Hz. The 19" CRTs are dirt cheap now...heck, even a 21" is a good deal. LCDs...yeah, they have their moments, but a couple of things that I can't live with:

The native resolution. Any other res looks terrible, and getting a 21" or 24" means a high native res...this means I would need a monster graphics card to push it at that high res and still look it's best.

Too contrasty. The darks are almost too dark, the brights just to razory bright. An LCD actually bothers my eyes.

Looking at it from the side makes the picture vastly different from the head-on view. Not great when having people over to watch a DVD on the computer.

Tearing. Although the response times are really good, I still percieve a tearing effect...like the game frames are moving through a viscous liquid or something. Perhaps this is just me....dunno.

Just too sharp...as I said, they have a grainy razor-ness to them. I just don't like that feeling. My CRT is sharp and the colors are excellent, yet it maintains a softer feel on my eyes, even with a nice tight .20 dot pitch, it still feels buffered.

LCD rant off. They are getting better, bigger and cheaper. Probably soon enough I will jump in. Right now, space is not an issue, so no worries with the 21" beast.

[Cigar_Guy]

It's a Samsung SyncMaster 750 ST, and the only thing I can say about it really is that it's just drab and maybe blurry enough that I wonder about it. If it was worse, I think I would have been bothered a lot earlier by it and changed it--any better and I'd be fine with it.

The real issue, I think, is that I also have a Mac Powerbook, which has the most fan-frickin'-tastic display I've ever seen. I'll pop in a movie to halfways watch and listen to on the PB while I play BF2 and when I glance over at it, I want to cry.

Again, the image is good (if slightly small--only a 15.75" viewable--I just measured it), but I feel like I could be getting a lot more out of the machine. Moves aren't as good on it, either, which definitely bugs me when I want to kick back and watch something. [/kvetch]

UPDATE/EDIT: What do you qualify as "dirt cheap" and a "good deal"? Monitor shopping was my achilles heel when building the desktop, which is coming back to haunt me now that I searched danawa for "19 CRT" and got waaay too many hits

[Demophobe]

Well, a 19" Samsung CRT for 233,000 is really cheap.

My 2100DF is now about 660,000..not bad.

Check these pages.

CRT

LCD

Personally, I like Samsung displays.

[Bulsajo]

[Antrugha]

[Demophobe]

[eamo]

Along with other upgrades, I got a 7900GT by Forsa for 290,000 from Yongsan.

So far, so good. There is a little worrying info on the net about these cards being overclocked from the box so they tend to overheat and fail. Well, I played about three hours of Oblivion today at high settings with no problems. As most gamers know, Elder Scrolls: Oloivion is just about the most graphically demanding game on the market at the moment.

[Bulsajo]

A video card question for everyone (experts and non-experts alike):

If you had to choose between THESE TWO cards, which would you choose, and why?
(please click on the link for details but briefly the 2 cards are a Radeon x1600 pro and a XFX GeForce 6800XT).