Saved Bookmarks
| 1. |
Solve : graphics card not working? |
|
Answer» MINE is a 945 series motherboard having a pentium 4 processor and 1 gb DDR 2 Ram . yesterday i installed my new graphics card NVIDIA GEFORCE 201(MSI BUILD). but now it isn't working properly . it has started slowing my pc and today its i was not able to see its application in notification area . i am using windows xpDo you mean the GeForce 210? Have you installed the drivers? www.nvidia.com/page/drivers.html ya i mean geforce 210 ya i have installed all the drivers but i forget to uninstall the previous Intel drivers that i have in my comp.Uninstall the previous Intel drivers to ensure Windows is not using them. Have you used nVidia update to make sure your nVidia control panel and driver are up to date? just totally forget that thanks mate ya i want to ask you that what type of games can i now run in my pc Quote ya i want to ask you that what type of games can i now run in my pc Here it is compared to some common graphics CARDS: http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/gpu.php?gpu=GeForce+210 It is a pretty low end card. If you're going to be gaming, you should go with something more substantial. What types of games? Probably half-life 2, counter strike, COD on low settings, crysis on super low (maybe not at all).Am I the only person who find's NVidia (and for that matter, ATI/AMD's) method of naming their video cards confusing as *censored*? Confusing as *censored*? I went to Hong Kong last weekend and asked a salesman at Broadway Electronics for the best laptop with a GTX 460M/Radeon HD 6770M graphics chipset. He told me that the GT 550M was better than both of them. I recalled that I had seen reviews of the GT 555M outperforming the GTS 360M and told him I might be slightly confused and asked him for a recommendation on the best bang for buck mid-range (core i5-2410M with discrete GDDR5 graphics) laptop I could get. He proceeded to tell me that nVidia made this "legendary graphics card for laptops that is now no longer available called the 9800M GT". I said that the best graphics card configuration in a laptop is the GTX 580M SLI, found in the Alienware M18x-the 9800M GT was released in 2008. He's like, "Oh no. You see, even if they SLI it, which means x2, it becomes a low-performance GT 1160. How does that match up to a 9800 GT? Better yet, you can SLI a 9800 GT to CREATE a graphics card over 15000!!! OMG11!!1" He finished up with the typical salesman "I beat the system" smug tooth-flashing smile. I responded like this: But actually if you look closer its not all that confusing. Some time ago, ATi/AMD had suffixes like XT, XTX, Pro, X2, etc. Now its all in the clear, at least for desktop cards-a GTS 250 will outperform any graphics card of the GT range. A GTS 450 will outperform a GTS 250. A GTX 460 will outperform a GTX 260-they are in different generations, even though they both end in 60. A GTX 280 will outperform a GTX 460, though, but not as much as a GTX 480 outperforms a GTX 260. A Radeon HD 5770 will outperform a HD 6750, but a HD 6770 will outperform a HD 5770. All of my claims have been verified with http://www.hwcompare.com and http://www.notebookcheck.net/Mobile-Graphics-Cards-Benchmark-List.844.0.htmlFor laptops, though, yes you are right there are many odd exceptions-a GT 445M is better than a GT 550M. A GTX 285M SLI does not meet the performance of a single GTX 485M. A HD 5870M is better than a 6870M and so forth. All of my claims have been verified with http://www.hwcompare.com and http://www.notebookcheck.net/Mobile-Graphics-Cards-Benchmark-List.844.0.htmlAll you did was confirm that the entire thing is confusing. It's all ridiculous, and the loser is the consumer, because there is absolutely no indication what the cards are for. Also, for one thing, if they are going to use numbers, bigger numbers should be better. For example a 9500 GT is worse than a 8800GT. why? That makes no sense. Yes I know that the second digit is more significant, but if that is the case why is it the second digit?. If it's more significant, it should be more significant in the number, a la 5900GT and 8800GT, so direct numeric comparisons actually make sense. If they aren't even going to make the numbers directly comparable, they shouldn't bother to use numbers at all. At least when the GPU families used names that could be used for a metric- all Riva TNT's are worse than all Geforce cards. ATI Rage Pro is less than Radeon. ATI Rage Pro is better than Rage II. Then they decided to stick with one name (Radeon for ATI and Geforce for Nvidia) and that's when the comprehensibility of their naming scheme took a nosedive. But then they decided to assign numbers to their chipsets and integrate that number into the number of the card, REDUCING the number into a pile of gibberish that cannot be treated like a number at all. It's marketing, really. Confuse the *censored* out of potential customers and maybe they'll pay more than they need too. |
|