Figuring out the graphic card universe...need for a database

[CityK]

Does anyone know of the existence of a comprehensive reference database for graphic cards? You can literally turn your back on the GPU scene for a month and then turn around only to discover that there is likely 6 new iterations of GPUs offered by both Nvidia and ATI. Problematically for the consumer, the nomenclature these companies adopt for new releases certainly leaves a lot to be desired in terms of figuring out the relative performance position that each card/GPU holds in the manufacturers lineup.

If no one is aware of one, would you guys be interested in collectively creating one that could be hosted here on SF? What I mean, btw, is something along the lines of what is provided on this page. A lot of nice summary information for the cards/chips they discuss there. The formating doesn't have to be the same, but we could create something similar. Perhaps with some additional tidbits like whether or not a card would use passive or active cooling, whether its locked for over clocking, maybe a link to a good article etc., etc. And then possibly order the entries in terms of their relative peformance position in each manufacturers line up. i.e Radeon 9800's on top Radeon 7000s at the bottom, and all the other filler in between. I wouldn't have a clue about all the Nvidia offerings (is NV15 still the king? :wink. It would be nice to get a quick reference to others too, like Matrox, Kyro etc.

CK

 

[jtr1962]

I second the need for this, and I think it would be nice to include anything going back maybe three or four years so you can figure out whether some older card on eBay might be worth getting. Most important would be compatibility of various cards as it seems like a confusing mess to someone like me. For instance, my 440BX M/B has an AGP2X port. Will recent cards work in it, and if not, which older cards would be compatible? That and some benchmark data would be useful.

BTW, I'm sure Mercutio would love to do the nVidia part of the database as he is such a fan of their products.

 

[LiamC]

If no one puts their hand up, I would be willing to give this a try, as I have been "following the scene" on and off for a while.

 

[Handruin]

I'm also willing to help, but I'm in the same boat as CityK. I haven't been reading up on graphics cards for some time now.

A database sounds like the way to manage that amount of information. LiamC, do you have a preference on how to manage the information?

I'm willing to help with creation, but I'm slow at developing and I only know php which might not be the best scripting language choice for some people. I'm also a bit slow at figuring out relational databases, but I can try.

We would need to figure out: (not a complete list, just ideas)

What data should be stored
How the data will be presented
Will a search be required
How will the data be entered
Will comparison graphs be required

 

[CougTek]

Just the card I remember off the top of my head :

Voodoo 1 4MB PCI
Voodoo Rush
Voodoo 2 8MB, still PCI
Voodoo Banshee
Voodoo 3, 16MB IIRC - also PCI
Voodoo 4/5 (several models, up to Voodoo 5 5500)
S3 Virge (first graphic decelerator)
S3 Savage (forgot details, but around the same period as the Voodoo Banshee)
Rendition (used in early Diamond Stealth)
Number 9 Revolution 128
Matrox Millenium 4MB to 16MB (memory upgradable)
Matrox Mystique
Matrox Millenium G400
Matrox Millenium G400 MAX
Matrox Millenium G450
Matrox Millenium G550
Matrox Parhelia 256
Matrox Parhelia 512
Matrox Parhelia P650
Matrox Parhelia P750
ATI 3D charger 4Mo PCI
ATI Xpert 98
ATI Xpert 2000
ATI Rage 128 16MB
ATI Rage Magnum (32MB IIRC)
ATI Rage 128 Pro
ATI Radeon SDR
ATI Radeon DDR
ATI Radeon 7000
ATI Radeon 7200
ATI Radeon 7500
ATI Radeon 8500
ATI Radeon 8500LE
ATI Radeon 9000
ATI Radeon 9100 (same as 8500LE)
ATI Radeon 9200
ATI Radeon 9200SE ("slower edition")
ATI Radeon 9500
ATI Radeon 9500 Pro
ATI Radeon 9600SE
ATI Radeon 9600
ATI Radeon 9600 Pro
ATI Radeon 9600XT
ATI Radeon 9700
ATI Radeon 9700 Pro
ATI Radeon 9800
ATI Radeon 9800SE
ATI Radeon 9800 Pro
ATI Radeon 9800XT
nVidia ? (forgot the name, but remember it was bad)
nVidia Z? (forgot details, was bad too)
nVidia Vanta
nVidia TNT
nVidia TNT Ultra
nVidia TNT Pro (smaller manufacturing process than Ultra)
nVidia TNT 2
nVidia GeForce 256 DDR
nVidia GeForce 256 SDR
nVidia GeForce 2MX
nVidia GeForce 2MX 200
nVidia GeForce 2MX 400
nVidia GeForce 2 GTS
nVidia GeForce 2 Ultra
nVidia GeForce 3
nVidia GeForce 3 Ti200
nVidia GeForce 3 Ti500
nVidia GeForce 4MX
nVidia GeForce 4MX 420
nVidia GeForce 4MX 440
nVidia GeForce 4MX 460
nVidia GeForce 4 Ti 4200
nVidia GeForce 4 Ti 4400
nVidia GeForce 4 Ti 4600
nVidia GeForce FX 5200
nVidia GeForce FX 5600
nVidia GeForce FX 5700
nVidia GeForce FX 5800
nVidia GeForce FX 5900
nVidia GeForce FX 5950

...I remember a few more, but I' tired of typing.

 

[Fushigi]

An interesting side bar to such a list would be the comparative performance of current laptop graphics chips. I don't think it'd necessarily have to be in the main database since laptop graphics aren't generally replaceable, but it'd be nice to know if a certain chipset is sufficient for some games.

Oh, I'd add the infamous Tseng Labs ET4000 chipset-based cards to Coug's list. :wink:

 

[Mercutio]

One of my personal favorites is the Rage Fury Maxx, which divided the screen in half and assigned each half (top v. bottom) to a Rage Fury Pro processor.

Obviously, a last gasp before the Radeon. IIRC it benchmarked roughly equivalent to a Vodoo 3500.

Also there were two chips from Rendition. The second revision was the R220.

s3 had the Savage4 chipset, and also the Savage Pro. Plus a billion revs of the Virge.

Going back that far, there was an NV1-based graphics card from Diamond. I don't remember what it was called, only that it was marketed with a bunch of games from Sega.

And of course the Riva128.

Matrox had the Millenium, which DID support 3D but not overlay, and the Mystique, which was a fully functional, early 3D part that nothing supported. So those are only "kinda" 3D. Later came the G100 and the G200.

Did Coug mention Permedia or Permedia2?

 

[CougTek]

An idea to simplify our task would be to contact via e-mail each company (still in business) and tell them we are doing an article on the history of graphic cards and chipset and that, since we feel that given company brought some important contributions to the evolution of computer graphics, we would like to include their past and present products into our tables.

Things like graphic cards official names, chipset used, manufacturing process (0.30µm or 0.13µm), VPU/GPU core clock frequency, memory frequency/bandwidth, special features introduced by that card, dates of launch, etc.

I'm sure they'll reply with asked informations, at least for their obsolete products.

 

[Mercutio]

From slashdot

 

[NRG = mc²]

There was also a GeForce 2 Titanium BTW...

 

[Mercutio]

An interesting side bar to such a list would be the comparative performance of current laptop graphics chips. I don't think it'd necessarily have to be in the main database since laptop graphics aren't generally replaceable....

Funny you should mention that. I was looking at some new-model laptops (probably Dells, although I don't remember and I'm too lazy to look) today and happened to notice upgradeable GPUs on some of the newer models.

I think it's a bad trend, since it's another way that fleets can end up non-uniform, and a faster GPU is sure to suck batteries faster as well.

 

[blakerwry]

There was also a GeForce 2 Titanium BTW...

I didn't beleive it until I looked it up.

 

[NRG = mc²]

Yep... short lived but they exist.

 

[Fushigi]

Funny you should mention that...

When I speced my laptop about 18 months ago, I had 2 choices for the video: 32 or 64MB RAM. All things considered I stuck with 32 as I saw no need for 64MB. Even running dual 1600x1200x32 bit screens as I current do it is more than enough. GF4 440 Go chipset, BTW.

The strange thing is when I went to Dell's site last week to check the latest Latitudes I found they hadn't really gotten any faster. 1.6-1.7GHz is still the high end. The Inspirons have gotten faster, but we've found them to be less reliable units so the company sticks with Latitudes.

 

[Howell]

An interesting side bar to such a list would be the comparative performance of current laptop graphics chips. I don't think it'd necessarily have to be in the main database since laptop graphics aren't generally replaceable....

Funny you should mention that. I was looking at some new-model laptops (probably Dells, although I don't remember and I'm too lazy to look) today and happened to notice upgradeable GPUs on some of the newer models.

I think it's a bad trend, since it's another way that fleets can end up non-uniform, and a faster GPU is sure to suck batteries faster as well.

Undoubtedly the GPUs would need to be pin compatible. I seriously doubt ATI is forward thinking enough to consider pin compatibility among their GPUs. That pretty much leaves NV and we know that their unified drivers won't have a problem between GPUs. That is to say, among a fleet of laptops whos GPUs may change at any time, it would not be any more difficult keeping track of drivers than for a fleet which did not change.

Faster GPUs draining batteries quickly is not a function of the upgradable socket. Any fast GPU in an upgradable socket or not with drain batteries faster. However, if you realized that when you purchaced your laptop that you over speced it and the battery life is abysmal; downgrading the GPU would be a way to recover battery life.

 

[Will Rickards WT]

http://www.fastsilicon.com/showarticle.php?a=28
http://www.accelenation.com/?ac.id.123.1

 

[blakerwry]

that's a great timeline. You can really get a feal for the companies and their "paper" launches.

You can see that matrox usually announces a product a few months prior to availability, but seems consistant. You can also tell that when Nvidia was behind and 3dfx was king that Nvidia was friendly with the paper launches... then the opposite shortly before 3dfx went under.

 

[CityK]

Err, so I'm a little confused as to whether there is interest in this or if people are satisfied with the info available elsewhere.

If there is interest, how shall we proceed?

CK

 

[CougTek]

Dates are important, but so are details about the graphic cards, which the above chart doesn't have. No performance indicator either.

 

[CityK]

http://www.hwhunpage.hu/gvt_e.htm

 

[CougTek]

Ahh! Then the picture is complete.

 

[Santilli]

I like this thread. The information really helps, but, it doesn't address one, big issue for me.

If you have an AGP slot, what cards will work int it?

To use the newer video cards, will they work in the AGP slot on an Asus A7M? Stuff like that.

When I see Matrox cards with fill rates nearly 5 times more then my Voodoo 5500, it really makes me wonder if the slot can take the card...

gs

 

[Mercutio]

AGP 8x Slots can't take AGP or AGP 2x cards, although I believe an 8x card will work in a 1x/2x slot.

There's also AGP Pro, which adds an extra part to the front of an AGP card, which can deliver additional power to a workstation-type AGP Pro card. Some motherboards support AGP Pro. They're the ones with a big sticker over the end of the AGP slot that says "For the love of God don't uncover this sticker".

 

[blakerwry]

The AGP voltage is determined by the motherboard, and the voltage keys and signal key (slot) in the video card.

Speed is always backwards compatible,
for example, a 4x device must be able to run at 2x and 1x.

The signalling voltage is the only incompatible part.

An 8x device must be 0.8v,
a 4x device can be 1.5v or 0.8v,
a 2x or 1x device can be 3.3v or 1.5v.

The connectors are keyed so that you can only use compatible equipment, up until AGP 3.0 (8x).
AGP 1.0 and 2.0 devices using a 1.5v key, signal at 1.5v, while AGP 3.0 devices use the 1.5v key and signal at 0.8v.
AGP 3.0 devices must be tolerant of 1.5v signalling, though they won't necessarily work -but will not be destroyed if inserted into an AGP 1.0/2.0 slot.

 

[blakerwry]

That should have quote's around it.. it was the 1st hit on google for me. and i believe it to be correct..

see also: http://www.ertyu.org/~steven_nikkel/agpcompatibility.html

 

[Santilli]

Do the older slots provide sufficent through put for the newer cards to function properly?

660 vs. 3200 for example?
gs

 

[blakerwry]

Not a whole lot of information should be travelling through the AGP bus. Just the vector and texture information. The card then takes that and computes the actual pixel/texel information onboard and outputs it to the frame buffer where your monitor then picks it up.


Additionally, for marketting purposes many cards use an AGP speed far in excess of what their memory/GPU bandwidth can really process. So you may see a 4x AGP card that will puke even when only being sent information at 1x speeds.

The only time the AGP bust might get bogged down is if your card does not have enough local memory and needs to use system RAM to store textures. This would be the case if you, for instance, bought the 4MB card when the 16MB cards of the same GPU were standard... or 16MB card when 32MB on the same GPU was standard.

The reason I mention having the same GPU is because you can't expect a TNT2 w/ 32MB of RAM to play DOOM III, no matter how little or how much RAM. While a faster radeon with 32MB might play it fine. The GPU of the TNT is just too slow.


If you have an AGP 4x card, I doubt you'll notice a difference in speed if running it at 1x AGP speeds.

 

[Santilli]

This should be sticked near the top of the board...

gs

 

[timwhit]

I hate sticky's. There are incredibly annoying. If you want to find an old thread then search for it.

 

[LiamC]

To search for it, you have to know it's there. Sticky's are preferable to not finding it at all IMO

How about shoving the thread over into the "Tools" category so it is at least more readily findable, and it does have some relevance.

 

[timwhit]

There are many important threads on this board, and if sticky's were created for all of them there would be a whole page of sticky's. This is why I don't like them. Sticky's just take up a lot of space that can be devoted to better things. If someone asks a question that can be answered by a certain thread then one of the regulars will most likely post a link to that thread. That is what a forum is all about.

 

[blakerwry]

agreed.

If we want this to be avaialble, then maybe we should reorganize it and put it in the toolbox

 

[Handruin]

Instead of cluttering the toolbox (unless this is relevant), would it make sense to have an archive forum for such topics as this?

 

[ddrueding]

Instead of cluttering the toolbox (unless this is relevant), would it make sense to have an archive forum for such topics as this?

Not an archive, that would imply that all old threads were there...how about a "hall of fame" forum? You can't post to it, but certain threads are moved there if deemed worthy (by voting?)

 

[Santilli]

These databases make me REALLY want to try a Matrox parahelia...

gs

 

[Buck]

Aces' has an interesting article on Nvidia and 3DFX here.

 

[Santilli]

After reading the Matrox board about Para drivers, I may buy an ATI card, instead....

gs

 

[Santilli]

Bamf!!!

This is a great thread...

s

 

[Santilli]

How come ATI top end cards are about 25% slower in pixel fill rate, top end, yet get great reviews against the ATI topend cards?

128 mb of memory, and more, need only apply.

s

 

[ddrueding]

Bamf!!!

Bamf?

B*ld Ass*d M*therF*cker?

Your're not talking about our fat furry friend, are you?