Video card components

[Liger86]

I was wondering, some people don't really look for what kind of processor a video card has.

I myself don't look at a video card specs, but I have to start doing that.

I know that there are like two processors, memmory clock and some wierd other one.

They usually come like this:
375Mhz and the second one is a bit faster 425Mhz, so how can you tell from the clock if you are going to be able to run a certain game?

I think that video game maker should specify the exact clock speeds a video card requires to run their game, not he old fashioned #MB aproach.

[ober]

You REALLY love to post polls, don't you?

[Liger86]

Originally posted by ober5861
You REALLY love to post polls, don't you?

yes, I like people opinions, even if it's something dumb.

[glUser3f]

read the specs, and don't buy the latest card, buy the one released exactly before it, you'll waste lots of money otherwise.

[Fountain]

Originally posted by glUser3f
read the specs, and don't buy the latest card, buy the one released exactly before it, you'll waste lots of money otherwise.

Errm unless the latest has a specific function that you require that is...Example optimized for Dx9-Maybe the last card didnt have it.

[glUser3f]

Originally posted by Fountain
Errm unless the latest has a specific function that you require that is...Example optimized for Dx9-Maybe the last card didnt have it.

In this case I suggest waiting for a while, because the latest card almost always costs lots more than the one exactly before it

[Waldo2k2]

If you want performance and compatibility for a decent price, and you're not going to run the new Doom...just go integrated. The intel integrated chipset rocks, I haven't tried many others first hand, the Gigabyte integrated is pretty good too.

Other than that, if you want a real card, I usually look at the specs., reviews aren't worth a damn.

[frenchfry164]

Trust me, when looking to buy a new graphics card, benchmarks and reviews have no importance. Just because some dude could get 5 hundred billion frames per second on an ATI card, and the nVidia card could only dish out 0.00002 FPS, that doesn't mean that the same will apply for your computer. A lot of benchmark people don't take in consideration that some cards are just bad in certain areas. They use the same settings for all cards. You can usually tweak the settings out and get a lot better performance, in more ways than just turning quality down.

Some benchmarks are just not reliable, and the information you read sometimes is misleading as well.

I think that video game maker should specify the exact clock speeds a video card requires to run their game, not he old fashioned #MB aproach.

That wouldn't work. Different chips operate at different effieciencies with clock speed. The #MB "approach" isn't old fashioned either. They're specifying the system requirements. They are saying how much VRAM is needed to store all the textures, etc. for the game.

[TravisS]

Yup, straight up specs really aren't a good comparison. If that were true, the GeForce FX 5900 Ultra would be blowing the Radeon 9800 Pro out of the water, but that simply isn't the case. Especially in DX9 and PS 2.0

If nothing else, AMD should have taught people by now that MHz is not everything.


[edit] I realize that AMD and video cards don't really go hand in hand, but it still illustrates my point