AGP Graphics Recommendations

[GT]

Recomendations please for an AGP graphics card to sit in a media centre PC:
I need it to decode HD video thereby taking the load off the athlon 2500
CPU.
On the gaming front, most demanding at the moment is Trackmania Nations
Forever at a decent resolution.
Physically, it can only be single height as the AGP slot is right next to
the edge of the small case.
I'm not convinced that there is much overhead in the PSU, so I would like
low power.
I would also like silent (passive only) or at least *very* quiet fan.

There is an old radeon 8500 with custom fanless heatsink in there at the
moment and it simply can't handle HD video and even struggles with some
normal video (BBCi player, downloaded TV)!

Full Current Spec:
Shuttle SK41 case with original motherboard (Forgotten model)
Athlon 2500
1.5GB DDR2 (2 sticks)
1x IDE drive
1x DVD drive
1x 120mm fan
1x AGP Radeon 8500 (passive) - to be replaced.

 

[Paul]

Recomendations please for an AGP graphics card to sit in a media centre PC:
I need it to decode HD video thereby taking the load off the athlon 2500
CPU.
On the gaming front, most demanding at the moment is Trackmania Nations
Forever at a decent resolution.
Physically, it can only be single height as the AGP slot is right next to
the edge of the small case.
I'm not convinced that there is much overhead in the PSU, so I would like
low power.
I would also like silent (passive only) or at least *very* quiet fan.

There is an old radeon 8500 with custom fanless heatsink in there at the
moment and it simply can't handle HD video and even struggles with some
normal video (BBCi player, downloaded TV)!

Full Current Spec:
Shuttle SK41 case with original motherboard (Forgotten model)
Athlon 2500
1.5GB DDR2 (2 sticks)
1x IDE drive
1x DVD drive
1x 120mm fan
1x AGP Radeon 8500 (passive) - to be replaced.

KM266 chipset ?

http://www.playtool.com/pages/agpcompat/agp.html

VIA KM266 (VT8375) Universal AGP Motherboard

I guess that means 4X/8X cards will work.

This one is fanless, and bridged (Rialto chip and pink protective
plastic, on the back of the card). HD 3450.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814102862

HD 3450 uses RV620.

http://www.gpureview.com/Radeon-HD-3450-AGP-card-582.html

RV620 is UVD+.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UVD

RV620 Radeon HD 3400 Series UVD+

The HD 4650 would likely be UVD 2.2 version. But the power
is a bit higher on these, and the ones I see listed have a fan.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814161308

It is listed as 48 watts power dissipation here.

http://www.gpureview.com/Radeon-HD-4650-AGP-card-611.html

Then, you need video playback software, that knows about the
video acceleration features on the card. The video playback
acceleration, is not automatically applied in any sense. The
software has to know that the video card has an accelerator.

I have a 48 watt card in my current computer, and it is down
near the bottom of the case. It helps, if there aren't any
air circulation dead spots down there. (My card tend to wallow
in its own heat.) I added a separate fan nearby to assist
in that respect.

Even with UVD 2.2 present on a card, I have no way of saying
whether your 2500 will cut it or not. The acceleration that
Purevideo or UVD provides, helps, but in the benchmarks I've seen,
they're still using pretty powerful processors as well.

Paul

 

[VanguardLH]

Recomendations please for an AGP graphics card to sit in a media centre PC:
I need it to decode HD video thereby taking the load off the athlon 2500
CPU.
On the gaming front, most demanding at the moment is Trackmania Nations
Forever at a decent resolution.
Physically, it can only be single height as the AGP slot is right next to
the edge of the small case.
I'm not convinced that there is much overhead in the PSU, so I would like
low power.
I would also like silent (passive only) or at least *very* quiet fan.

There is an old radeon 8500 with custom fanless heatsink in there at the
moment and it simply can't handle HD video and even struggles with some
normal video (BBCi player, downloaded TV)!

Full Current Spec:
Shuttle SK41 case with original motherboard (Forgotten model)
Athlon 2500
1.5GB DDR2 (2 sticks)
1x IDE drive
1x DVD drive
1x 120mm fan
1x AGP Radeon 8500 (passive) - to be replaced.

I have the ATI x850 in my old host. At the time, it was the best you could
get in AGP. However, over time the games have moved up to required Pixel
Shader Model 3 which this card won't handle. The GPU has more than enough
horsepower to play the stealth games that I would want to play but the
firmware only support Shader v2. ATI later came out with their HD series.
After researching, the one that interests me to spend the money and time
(especially for resolving any conflicts after installation) is the ATI HD
3850.

I have a saved search at eBay to keep watching for a good deal on the ATI HD
3850 AGP but it's been rare that I've seen the auction close for less than
$100, and those that were around $60-$80 didn't look like anything that I
wanted. I can get the average price for a new card for the same price
elsewhere so eBay hasn't proven fruitful to find a good deal on this item.
I usually stick with the Sapphire brand for ATI cards. They are a
recommended vendor for ATI cards. I prefer solid products that are
reliable. An unreliable glitzy or overclocked card is of no value if it
doesn't work or fails often.

However, since it is only games that are pushing my need for a new video
card and only because they demand Shader model 3 (and some require v4), I've
procrastinated on getting a new video card and probably will continue to do
so until I get around to building a new computer.

You can see some specs comparing various ATI video cards at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_AMD_graphics_processing_units

 

[GT]

Recomendations please for an AGP graphics card to sit in a media centre
PC:
I need it to decode HD video thereby taking the load off the athlon 2500
CPU.
On the gaming front, most demanding at the moment is Trackmania Nations
Forever at a decent resolution.
Physically, it can only be single height as the AGP slot is right next to
the edge of the small case.
I'm not convinced that there is much overhead in the PSU, so I would like
low power.
I would also like silent (passive only) or at least *very* quiet fan.

There is an old radeon 8500 with custom fanless heatsink in there at the
moment and it simply can't handle HD video and even struggles with some
normal video (BBCi player, downloaded TV)!

Anyone know the power draw of a Radeon 8500? There is not an entry for power
draw for this card on GPUReview.com and I can't find it on google.

 

[GT]

KM266 chipset ?

http://www.playtool.com/pages/agpcompat/agp.html

VIA KM266 (VT8375) Universal AGP Motherboard

I guess that means 4X/8X cards will work.

This one is fanless, and bridged (Rialto chip and pink protective
plastic, on the back of the card). HD 3450.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814102862

HD 3450 uses RV620.

http://www.gpureview.com/Radeon-HD-3450-AGP-card-582.html

RV620 is UVD+.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UVD

RV620 Radeon HD 3400 Series UVD+

Would an HD 3450 be faster at 3d games than the 8500? Benchmarks are hard to
go on because the cards are different eras and the reviews compare different
games. 3dMark scores are also useless as they are different versions too.
Has anyone compared these two cards directly?

 

[Paul]

Anyone know the power draw of a Radeon 8500? There is not an entry for power
draw for this card on GPUReview.com and I can't find it on google.

http://web.archive.org/web/20040411032947/http://www.takaman.jp/psu_calc.html?english

VGA AGP = Radeon 8500 (estimated) 3.3V @ 4.5A + 5V @ 1A + 12V @ 1.5A = 37.85W

HTH,
Paul

 

[GT]

http://web.archive.org/web/20040411032947/http://www.takaman.jp/psu_calc.html?english

VGA AGP = Radeon 8500 (estimated) 3.3V @ 4.5A + 5V @ 1A + 12V @ 1.5A =
37.85W

HTH,
Paul

Brilliant, thanks.

 

[Paul]

Would an HD 3450 be faster at 3d games than the 8500? Benchmarks are hard to
go on because the cards are different eras and the reviews compare different
games. 3dMark scores are also useless as they are different versions too.
Has anyone compared these two cards directly?

There is a seven year difference between the dates of introduction.
It would be pretty hard to find similar games being run on
cards that far apart.

http://www.gpureview.com/show_cards.php?card1=582&card2=22

Your best bet, might be to dig up some 3DMark2001se results.
You could run that bench on the R8500 yourself, and then
all you'd need to find is a result for the newer card.

http://majorgeeks.com/download99.html

Paul

 

[Joel]

Full Current Spec:
Shuttle SK41 case with original motherboard (Forgotten model)
Athlon 2500
1.5GB DDR2 (2 sticks)
1x IDE drive
1x DVD drive
1x 120mm fan
1x AGP Radeon 8500 (passive) - to be replaced.

Get a faster CPU and more memory.. That's about all you need cuz faster
graphic card won't make much or any difference besides faster displaying.

And if you want faster encoding (authoring) then Win7 holds a very
important key. Here, I authoring DVD 24/7 and I can tell you that Win7
64-bit cooks it much faster than WinXP.

 

[Anoi Ance]

[quoted text muted]

Would an HD 3450 be faster at 3d games than the 8500? Benchmarks are hard to
go on because the cards are different eras and the reviews compare different
games. 3dMark scores are also useless as they are different versions too.
Has anyone compared these two cards directly?

I think these days especially if you have DD2 memory you could find a
CPU/mothwerboard combo under $80-100 w/ video that would handle your
needs. Like a Amd X4 635 Biostar AM2/2+ board w/ ATI HD3000 vga $90USD
that should be able to play all the HD + 5.1ch you need, when you need it.

Tom's hardware guide has an excellent interactive vga comparison guide
that lets you select and compare vga cards performances for different
application software. Any of the later vga card reviews should have a
chart at the conclusion that recommends which vga cards you would need
consider before you actually notice performance increases.

The issue you have now is finding a quiet DX9c, or DX10 AGP in case you do
want to play games, that fits your case and power supply. Another poster
recommended some of the older AGP VGA cards (ATI X850, 9650) but those
cards need to match your case and I wouldn't take any less than DX9c
capable.

 

[GT]

[quoted text muted]

Would an HD 3450 be faster at 3d games than the 8500? Benchmarks are hard
to
go on because the cards are different eras and the reviews compare
different
games. 3dMark scores are also useless as they are different versions too.
Has anyone compared these two cards directly?

I think these days especially if you have DD2 memory you could find a
CPU/mothwerboard combo under $80-100 w/ video that would handle your
needs. Like a Amd X4 635 Biostar AM2/2+ board w/ ATI HD3000 vga $90USD
that should be able to play all the HD + 5.1ch you need, when you need it.

Sorry, no DDR2, just DDR in there - my mistake. Typing on automatic!!

Tom's hardware guide has an excellent interactive vga comparison guide
that lets you select and compare vga cards performances for different
application software. Any of the later vga card reviews should have a
chart at the conclusion that recommends which vga cards you would need
consider before you actually notice performance increases.

Yes, I thought it did, but I couldn't find it anymore - the link I have is
broken and a search revealed nothing. Anyone got a working link to the
TomsHardware VGA comparison tool/page??

 

[GT]

Wait a minute. That board, are you sure it's DD2 memory?
http://www.shuttle.eu/_archive/older/en/fx41.htm#mainboardfx4
If not it may raise my proposed project cost buy a couple
dozen dollars or whatever DDR2 costs these days.

Its PC2700 DDR, not DDR2. Don't know why I typed that. Mistake!

All I'm really after is accellerated HD video playback and improved 3d
performance. We don't need fast flowing COD4 graphics or anything so
demanding, just HD video in hardware and trackmania at better fps. I don't
think its worth replacing the motherboard and CPU - there is no number
crunching, video encoding etc required - I have 2 other PCs for that. This
PC is a living room media centre for music, TV, internet, hotmail and a few
kids games.

The front panel of the case is tied into the motherboard, so I would
actually loose features if I replace the board! I intend to just swap the
Radeon 8500 for either an HD3450 or a HD4650 AGP. I'm just struggling to
find 3d figures that I can relate to the current Radeon 8500 performance,
which I intend to study before upgrading.

 

[Jon Danniken]

I have the ATI x850 in my old host. At the time, it was the best you
could get in AGP. However, over time the games have moved up to
required Pixel Shader Model 3 which this card won't handle.
[snip]

However, since it is only games that are pushing my need for a new
video card and only because they demand Shader model 3 (and some
require v4)....

Interesting, the games flat out won't play if the card doesn't have the
right shader version? You can't just dumb down the game to use with an
older card?

Jon

 

[Paul]

[quoted text muted]
Would an HD 3450 be faster at 3d games than the 8500? Benchmarks are hard
to
go on because the cards are different eras and the reviews compare
different
games. 3dMark scores are also useless as they are different versions too.
Has anyone compared these two cards directly?

I think these days especially if you have DD2 memory you could find a
CPU/mothwerboard combo under $80-100 w/ video that would handle your
needs. Like a Amd X4 635 Biostar AM2/2+ board w/ ATI HD3000 vga $90USD
that should be able to play all the HD + 5.1ch you need, when you need it.

Sorry, no DDR2, just DDR in there - my mistake. Typing on automatic!!

Tom's hardware guide has an excellent interactive vga comparison guide
that lets you select and compare vga cards performances for different
application software. Any of the later vga card reviews should have a
chart at the conclusion that recommends which vga cards you would need
consider before you actually notice performance increases.

Yes, I thought it did, but I couldn't find it anymore - the link I have is
broken and a search revealed nothing. Anyone got a working link to the
TomsHardware VGA comparison tool/page??

The main chart page is

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts

OK, I can get some overclocked results from here, which will give you a ballpark
figure. Since the CPU makes a difference to a benchmark like this, you could
easily be off by 25% or more by using a result like this. So the main benefit
is to suggest the modern cards are about the same as your old one, and not a
big difference.

http://hwbot.org/community/submission/950599_roccoesa_3dmark_2001_radeon_hd_3450_agp_14246_marks

3DMark 2001 = 14246 marks with Ati Radeon HD 3450 AGP at 750/450MHz

http://hwbot.org/community/submission/914873_maries11_3dmark_2001_radeon_hd_4650_agp_17801_marks

3DMark 2001 = 17801 marks with Ati Radeon HD 4650 AGP at 712/550MHz

http://hwbot.org/community/submission/601760_diabelica_3dmark_2001_radeon_8500_10771_marks

3DMark 2001 = 10771 marks with Ati Radeon 8500

One thing to note about gameplay, and what happens when you change cards.
Say your current card is DirectX 8.1 or whatever. The games you play, may
have several rendering paths. A game might have DX8 and DX9. If you insert
a card with DX9 hardware support, the game may switch to a new render path.
Sometimes, this is harder on the CPU, so if you're CPU limited, the game
might slow down. The graphics hardware could be faster, but the amount of CPU
overhead could be higher. I think I've seen that here, in years past,
where one of my low end cards kinda made things worse.

Some games will have a setup panel or configuration file, where you may
be able to control or change the rendering path or method. Other games,
will just grab the most modern rendering method they can find, regardless
of expense.

HTH,
Paul

 

[VanguardLH]

I have the ATI x850 in my old host. At the time, it was the best you
could get in AGP. However, over time the games have moved up to
required Pixel Shader Model 3 which this card won't handle.
[snip]

However, since it is only games that are pushing my need for a new
video card and only because they demand Shader model 3 (and some
require v4)....

Interesting, the games flat out won't play if the card doesn't have the
right shader version? You can't just dumb down the game to use with an
older card?

The games won't install, will abort when started, or will crash when ran.
In any case, not having support for the Shader version required by the game
means you can't play it. There might be games that let you degenerate them
to less graphics support but I haven't run across any. You'll have to check
what are the *minimum* requirements for a game and then realize that you
won't want to meet just those minimums to make the game enjoyable to play.
In fact, and what is nasty by the game makers, is that their demo versions
will run on less capable hosts but not the full game. Finding the system
requirements for some (maybe many) games is difficult and often found
elsewhere than the game maker. So you get suckered into wanting a game
whose demo plays okay but find your hardware is too decrepit to play the
full version. Many games in the last few years demand Shader v3. Shader v4
has since showed up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pixel_shader

The other condition is support of DirectX 10. Windows XP (what I still use)
only goes up to DX9. Vista/7 would give me DX10 but then that's another
expense just to play games. ATI HD 3850 supports Shader 4.1 and DX10.1. So
if I move to Vista/7 then I've got the Shader and DX support for the newer
games. Alas, I'd be putting the video card in an older host with an AMD
Athlon XP 3200+ (single core) and be held to under 4GB max system memory and
why I'll probably hold out for a better video card until I build my next
host.

 

[Joel]

[quoted text muted]

Would an HD 3450 be faster at 3d games than the 8500? Benchmarks are hard to
go on because the cards are different eras and the reviews compare different
games. 3dMark scores are also useless as they are different versions too.
Has anyone compared these two cards directly?

I think these days especially if you have DD2 memory you could find a
CPU/mothwerboard combo under $80-100 w/ video that would handle your
needs. Like a Amd X4 635 Biostar AM2/2+ board w/ ATI HD3000 vga $90USD
that should be able to play all the HD + 5.1ch you need, when you need it.

Tom's hardware guide has an excellent interactive vga comparison guide
that lets you select and compare vga cards performances for different
application software. Any of the later vga card reviews should have a
chart at the conclusion that recommends which vga cards you would need
consider before you actually notice performance increases.

The issue you have now is finding a quiet DX9c, or DX10 AGP in case you do
want to play games, that fits your case and power supply. Another poster
recommended some of the older AGP VGA cards (ATI X850, 9650) but those
cards need to match your case and I wouldn't take any less than DX9c
capable.

I have never been a gamer, but I had to upgrade my graphic card to DX10 (I
think mine is 10 or hgiher) because DX9 is the monimum requirement for
Windows 7.

 

[Joel]

No.

The absolute last thing that matters, given the right
codecs, is Win7.

On the contrary, Win7 on average pales in comparison to XP
when it comes to performance.

I have been doing DVD authoring and WinRAR almost none stop for years, and
I can smell the speed difference between WinXP and Win7

If you want to talk about features on the other hand...
well then it depends entirely on what features the PC owner
deems important.

Features? I only use my computer for DVD Authoring and photo retouching,
other than that I don't know what kinda of feature I am missing. Or I don't
play game, don't listen to music, and don't play video etc.. to know more
about the features besides doing theng faster.

... but generally speaking, it is nonsense that the OS makes
any significant difference in comparison to any other
factors including CPU, video card, software, driver, etc.

I heard some do, but I am not experted on this to confirm it. IOW,
recently Adobe claims their newer Photoshop (I am still using CS3) can take
advantage of Windows 64-bit and graphic card.

Now I have Win7 64-bit and better graphic card (I am not sure if this
specific card will make Photosop runs any faster, but it's one of the
fastest cards), but I only have CS3 and haven't had much chance to use it
yet.

In other words, don't EVER fall for this crap, a more
bloated OS is never a solution to a performance issue, but
it is a solution to specific other issues that could effect
performance too... but generally speaking, the 32bit OS
limit is not significant when considering an old system and
upgrading an AGP video card.

You won't find me falling for any crap, but I have to see with my very own
eyes. And I hardly share anything that I don't have my very personal
experience.

IOW, 99.99% of things come out of my mouth are things I have seen with my
very own eyes, some of them could be mistaken or something ain't right.

 

[Joel]

On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 11:03:31 +0100, GT frustrated with the OS wrote:

[quoted text muted]

Would an HD 3450 be faster at 3d games than the 8500? Benchmarks are hard to
go on because the cards are different eras and the reviews compare different
games. 3dMark scores are also useless as they are different versions too.
Has anyone compared these two cards directly?


I think these days especially if you have DD2 memory you could find a
CPU/mothwerboard combo under $80-100 w/ video that would handle your
needs. Like a Amd X4 635 Biostar AM2/2+ board w/ ATI HD3000 vga $90USD
that should be able to play all the HD + 5.1ch you need, when you need it.

Tom's hardware guide has an excellent interactive vga comparison guide
that lets you select and compare vga cards performances for different
application software. Any of the later vga card reviews should have a
chart at the conclusion that recommends which vga cards you would need
consider before you actually notice performance increases.

The issue you have now is finding a quiet DX9c, or DX10 AGP in case you do
want to play games, that fits your case and power supply. Another poster
recommended some of the older AGP VGA cards (ATI X850, 9650) but those
cards need to match your case and I wouldn't take any less than DX9c
capable.

I have never been a gamer, but I had to upgrade my graphic card to DX10 (I
think mine is 10 or hgiher) because DX9 is the monimum requirement for
Windows 7.

... isn't that only if you want the Aero interface? IMO,
it's neat and pretty but also saps usability... but to each
his own preference.

Don't ask me thing I don't know, or I don't know nor I care what Aero is.
And what is Aero?

And as I said I upgraded not because of the performance but because of the
minimum requirement of Windows 7. And I have to upgrade both Video and
graphic cards just to get Windows 7 started.

 

[Joel]

In these tasks you won't find a significant difference.
More likely you are simply using a faster CPU and/or more
evolved video codec and version of WinRAR. For example at
some point they started becoming multi-threaded so our
dual/quad/etc CPUs could be put to better use.

A HUGE difference and I couldn't believe it to tell other about it. The
only different that the newer momboard is 400MB faster than the older one.

Yes, but this isn't OS so much as comparing a newer
application, and 32/64bit of any OS, and of course you have
a different driver for each.

I ain't go that far yet. Right now I just try to get the programs running
and enjoying the lighting fast speed, and that's about all I want and know.
I can't tell much difference between WinRAR 32-bit vs WinRAR 64-bit cuz I
only used WinRAR 32-bit on Win7 64-bit around 2 weeks before switching to
64-bit version. In only know WinRAR runs much faster under Win7 64-bit
comparing to my older WinXP

You are experiencing the evolution of PCs, that they get
faster, but it is despite the bloat of certain newer OS.

On the other hand, given specific scenarios you may need a
newer OS to support certain things like more memory, more
CPU cores, the newest version of an application... other
things that can in themselves improve performance.

When I speak of XP and Vista or Win7 I am comparing
apples:apples where all the rest stays as near the same as
possible, not just a computer from a few years ago to one
today. Certainly they have become faster overall.

Heck I never care for apple and don't really know what kind of apple to
have at your end. All I know is that the exact same 32-bit aps run much
faster under Win7 than WinXP.

Example, DVD Auhtoring. Years ago under Win95/98 and slower system it may
take 12-24 hrs for single DVD. Under WinXP depending on the method I use,
it can take between 30 minutes to 3-10 hrs per DVD. And now under Win7
64-bit I can re-encode (the slowest method) more than dozen DVDs per day.

Yes, and I am still using the same old 32-bit aps, execpt the newer WinRAR
64-bit and newer Wacom tablet driver that works with about all Windows
versions (older Windows and 32-bit and 64-bit)