Who here would like to see a Low-end graphics chart?

[daveybrat]

Tom's hardware has a nice Graphics card comparison chart for the mid-range to high end cards. I'd really like to see a chart with just low-end cards from Nvidia and ATI.

Examples are the ATI 2400Pro, HD3450, Nvidia 7200GS, 8400GS

There are a lot of low-end cards out that i'd like to see some gaming and HD playback benchmarks in a nice consolidated chart.

Anyone else wish to see this?

 

[HOOfan 1]

I would just like to see Tomshardware bring back the old charts. That seems to be all anyone talks about over on their Website complaint section now....but they don't care apparently

the old charts let you comparet the lower end cards too.......if you go to enough pains I believe the new charts will too.

 

[daveybrat]

Originally posted by: HOOfan 1
I would just like to see Tomshardware bring back the old charts. That seems to be all anyone talks about over on their Website complaint section now....but they don't care apparently

the old charts let you comparet the lower end cards too.......if you go to enough pains I believe the new charts will too.

Exactly, i applaud their graphics charts, but where are the low-end cards? Not everyone wants to buy the latest and greatest, i'd really like to see some lower end cards on there.

 

[coldmeat]

A chart like that is exactly what I need right now.

 

[panfist]

Originally posted by: daveybrat
Examples are the ATI 2400Pro, HD3450, Nvidia 7200GS, 8400GS

I can't really speak about the differences between the nvidia 7000-series and 8000-series low end, but in terms of ATI graphics cards, here's a nice rule of thumb:

The 3000-series is better than the 2000-series in every way. The 2400 Pro evolved into the 3450, and the 2400XT evolved into the 3470. The 3000 series will be cooler, use less power, and perform the same or better in every case. You can get a 3000-series for about $5 more (after rebate). If you refuse to deal with rebates...my advice would be to suck it up and just get a 3000-series anyway.

 

[nemesismk2]

Yes I would like to see a low end video card chart. Low end video cards are what the majority of people actually buy and low end video cards do seem to be pretty much ignored

 

[ShawnD1]

The reason they don't post low end cards is because nobody cares. You can't use them for games, or CAD, so it doesn't make a difference.

My Celeron 520 (1.6ghz) laptop has integrated intel graphics (945m?) and has a 3dmark06 score of something like 150. Even with no ability to play games, it still has enough hardware acceleration to play .avi movies with less than 5% CPU power. As long as it can play movies, and in-browser video, and supports Vista's desktop composition (everything except transparent glass), then it doesn't really matter how fast it is.

 

[Ruptga]

Originally posted by: ShawnD1
The reason they don't post low end cards is because nobody cares. You can't use them for new games, or CAD, so it doesn't make a difference.

My Celeron 520 (1.6ghz) laptop has integrated intel graphics (945m?) and has a 3dmark06 score of something like 150. Even with no ability to play games, it still has enough hardware acceleration to play .avi movies with less than 5% CPU power. As long as it can play movies, and in-browser video, and supports Vista's desktop composition (everything except transparent glass), then it doesn't really matter how fast it is.

Fixed that for you. Just because a low end card can't run Crysis or Supreme Commander doesn't mean it's good for nothing; there's still a huge performance gap between IGPs and midrange discrete. Granted, that was narrowed quite a bit with AMD's 780G, but that's the exception to the rule.

 

[OmegaShadow]

Isn't the point of those charts to see how well the graphic cards perform in games? What would be the point of having a chart for low end cards if people buy them for office use or non gaming uses.

 

[ShawnD1]

You might be able to play games on low end cards, but you'll be restricted to games that are 5 years old. In 2002 I bought a Radeon 7200 video card, and it was just barely able to play Half-Life, a game which was released in 1998. It got about 30fps at 640x480.

The assumption is that people buying a low end card understand it is incapable of playing most games. Sort of like how we don't test if an 8600GT runs Autocad or Solid Works; not designed for it.

 

[Ruptga]

Originally posted by: ShawnD1
You might be able to play games on low end cards, but you'll be restricted to games that are 5 years old. In 2002 I bought a Radeon 7200 video card, and it was just barely able to play Half-Life, a game which was released in 1998. It got about 30fps at 640x480.

The assumption is that people buying a low end card understand it is incapable of playing most games. Sort of like how we don't test if an 8600GT runs Autocad or Solid Works; not designed for it.

Counterexample: I play CnC Generals Zero Hour on medium settings at 1024x768 with mobile GMA 950, which was released in 2005 iirc. Generals was released in 2003, ZH in 2005.

I think what we really need is a chart to decide if low end cards are completely worthless or not

 

[Zap]

Originally posted by: ShawnD1
The reason they don't post low end cards is because nobody cares. You can't use them for games, or CAD, so it doesn't make a difference.

My guess is that you've never been too broke to afford a good video card.

For those who can't afford a good video card (and there are many) then low end and midrange graphics will suffice at gaming. Sure, no 1920x1200 8xAA gaming, but gaming nevertheless.

Originally posted by: ShawnD1
You might be able to play games on low end cards, but you'll be restricted to games that are 5 years old.

Huh?

Even if the statement is true, there's plenty of 5+ year old games that people still play. Heck, there's legions of people playing CS 1.6 and Starcraft. A 9800GX2 would surely outperform an 8400GS in Starcraft, right? Uh huh.

Originally posted by: ShawnD1
The assumption is that people buying a low end card understand it is incapable of playing most games. Sort of like how we don't test if an 8600GT runs Autocad or Solid Works; not designed for it.

They aren't incapable, just slow. That's like saying an econobox car is "incapable" of driving on the freeway simply because they're entry-level cars. Sure they can, they just can't get to freeway speeds as fast, and can't go 140MPH or whatever a higher performance car can do.

As for an 8600GT in Autocad or Solid Works, of course it isn't designed for those applications. The cards "designed" for them are the Quadro series of cards, not the Geforce.