Please aid the perplexed: graphics cards

[zotz]

I'm considering reboarding my PC - or, rather, I'm considering whether now is the time to reboard my PC. I think I'm fine about most of the components I'd need, but when it comes to graphics cards I know absolutely fuck nothing about anything that's happened since a nice fast SVGA was state-of-the-art

Comments

[dj_alexander]

Nvidia 8XXX are the way to go at the moment - 8800GTX being just about top of the league I believe.

Although apparently the new ATIs are supposed to be quite good.

[zotz]

Traditionally the ATIs weren't as good under Linux. That may well have changed - I haven't been paying so much attention.

For the sort of thing I mentioned, would there be much point me going past an 8400 or 8500, do you think? And have you any idea how they compare to something like a 7600?

[babysimon]

ATI have recently opened up their specs, so there's the promise of good open-source drivers in the future. NB: that's very much in the future - right now you can use their lousy binary driver or a feature-light open one.

If you're buying a new motherboard, why not get one with Intel integrated graphics? Open driver, runs Compiz et al just fine, although it's hard to find a mobo with a DVI socket for some insane reason.

If that won't suit, I'd go for the cheapest fanless NVidia since their driver at least works. For non-gaming use, and card will be complete overkill anyway.

[zotz]

The only thing I can think of that I've already tried to run that need OpenGL are Google Earth and Flightgear - do you reckon a 30-pound 8400gs would cover those bases?

[babysimon]

I don't have a cheap Nvidia, but Google Earth runs just fine on this laptop with Intel integrated, and I'd be amazed if a cheap Nvidia wasn't several times more powerful than that.

I have just installed Flightgear and spent five minutes attempting to get my plane to move. The runway seemed to be rendered fine, but as the plane wasn't moving I couldn't judge the framerate...

[zotz]

Cheers.

[deliberateblank]

Google Earth works just fine on my work 7600 using nVidia's own driver. (It broke fairly comically using on-board Intel graphics.) Haven't tried the other.

[ciphergoth]

Just had a quick look and it looks like that situation is getting better: http://www.google.co.uk/products?q=dvi+motherboard

[babysimon]

Sorry, I meant with DVI socket and Intel graphics.

[dj_alexander]

For your uses 8400 or 8500 should be fine, an 8500 GT is about the equivalent of a 7600 GT purely from a performance perspective. Personally I would always go for the newer cards simply for DX 10 / SM 4 / HD Video acceleration, but as you mentioned that's not an issue. You can get a 8400GS for under £30 now, and a 8500GT under £50, but sounds like you'll be good with an 8400GS.

[zotz]

Might very well go with that, then. Thanks.

[babysimon]

Hint: get a passive one, since GPU fans tend to the noisy, and aftermarket fans are a pain.

[zotz]

Good point. Duly noted - thanks. I've never had a graphics card with a fan, so I wouldn't know without being told.

[_nicolai_]

Indeed, and also unreliable so your graphics get flaky when the shitty little fan breaks after some months.
Solid-state cooling is the way to go there.

[emarkienna]

According to Tom's Hardware benchmarks [*], a 7600GT isn't that much slower (if at all, and in some cases slightly faster) than an 8600GT (though last time I looked, they're similarly priced anyway). But yes, these would probably be overkill, I agree with the other comments that lower end cards would be fine.

If you're re-motherboarding, what about using on-board graphics, as most motherboards seem to have them, which'd be cheaper and no extra fan? Even a common basic one like the Intel GMA 950 does fine if one isn't trying to play recent games. But I don't know what Linux support is like for these.

[*] Annoying the site currently seems down, but I have some benchmarks noted down from when I was looking for a new card recently.