Only differences are it's a Dell dimension 2400 with a Celron 2.40Gz processor, GeForce FX5200 PCI card. Vista runs just fine because the dedicated RAM in the card takes some stress off the machine. Now does anyone know about BIOS? (smile).
I have a 256MB nVidia GeForce 6800 in our main desktop PC which was built more for entertainment, just the built-in (integrated on-board) 128MB Intel Graphics for the extra Basic build desktop PC, and 128MB integrated Intel Graphics for my laptop (both integrated graphics being used are graphics specific RAM -I forget the tech word for that right now- meaning they don't share the rest of the system RAM).
I find this the average set-up for basic usage (light applications, some gaming), but would suggest going with at least a 256MB PCIe graphics card (AGP only if you don't have PCIe slots available on your motherboard) if you want more graphics heavy applications (photoshop, more serious gaming). With laptops, you have fewer choices and you have to make them when purchasing the laptop, but I can still watch many movies, use photoshop, and play many games on my laptop without really noticing much of a difference from a 256MB card...
nothing special. just came stock with my powerbook g4. runs games blazingly if not ultimately fast. wc3 and wow look beautiful.
On my two home built gamming rigs I have an ATI SLI x1600 with 512Mb ram, and A Nvidia fx6800 with 512 Mb. One system is AMD x2 based and the other is an Intel p4 based processor. They are not bleeding edge in speed but above the "off the shelf" junk from Best Buy or Circuit City.
... The topic says it all really.
Very pleased with this card, considering the cost. HL2, Race Driver 3, and all the other things I can think of look wonderful at full res. I only have to tweak the settings for games like BF2 and FEAR (although I've not done any of the usual hardcore gamer things like a weekly defrag or bought blisteringly fast memory and tweaked the memory timings, I just can't be arsed with all that!). Dead good card for what I paid. ![]()
I have a 256 MB (VRAM) NVIDIA Graphics card in a Power Mac G5. Works for me.
Dell Dimension 8300 from Feb. 2004 has
ATI 128MB Radeon 9800 Pro
Dell Dimension XPS T550 from mid 1999 has
3dFX 16MB Voodoo3 3000
Tapwave Zodiac 2 (Palm OS PDA) has
custom ATI 8MB 2d graphics accelorator
but of course, I voted 128MB.
I have a 128MB ATI All in Wonder 9600 Pro video card. I know it's getting older, but the features are truly amazing. For example, I can play FM Radio and watch TV on my computer without any additional devices. I currently have a triple boot working fine with the card, including Vista: Windows XP SP2, Windows Vista RC1, and Fedora Core 5. And no, I don't use them all in the same day. It's more for compatiblity: I can run any application I get.
My Athlon 64 laptop has a 128mb ATi Mobility Radeon 9700, which I use for occasional light gaming.
My G3 iMac DV has an 8mb ATi Rage 128VR, which is perfectly adequate for all of the animations and visual effects of OS X Panther.
256 MB on my pc (Ati Radeon X1600 XT 256 MB)
64 MB on my Macbook 1.83 GHz
i got 128mb, but as is an intel whatever graphics card, is like i had less than 100 mb how bad it is, nothing personal with intel, but i couldnt run the good games on my computer and this is 1 year old
That Intel information seems to indicate that you have video chips on your mother board and not a full video card. If so, they will run slow. You might want to try to go to the Intel web site and see if there are updated drivers for your chips. You may also want to consider buying a real video card if you have the space. A card for under $100 will be much faster than the chips. The two larger manufactures are ATI who makes their own cards and nVidia who makes chips that other people like eVGA use on their cards. Make sure you buy the right kind of card for your computer mother board.
My Video card (ATI Radeon 9250) has 256mb of Ram. It is a great card but I expect that there are others out there who will disagree with me.
7950 GX2, that's 1GB GDDR3 video memory biatches. Last card I had before that was a 32MB TNT2 in my super old, store-bought system :\
But memory is really not as important as people think. Memory is really overated, you should never judge a card exclusively on memory. There are core and memory frequency speeds to consider, overclockability and most importantly, features; such as pixel shader versions, most recent is 3.0; and the differences between previous versions are outstanding. Concerning excesive memory, it's only to jack up to extreme texture detail with ridiculous resolutions.
Memory can sometimes be a gimmick too, I mean, I've seen GeForce 6 series cards with 512MB of memory and a x700 with the same, which is just plain ridiculous, the games that the cores of those types of cards have to deal with won't demand so much memory at all. Essentially, it's bottlenecking.
I have to admit, the 7950's a waste of money, because DX10 and the dilicious 8 series cards are not too far off, but I have money to throw around I guess.
I bought an ATI All In Wonder, low end unfortunately. It's not well-supported by ATI. I recently had issues with a driver upgrade, where the driver made the rest of the features unusable. And ATI has changed their website too many times in the last 3-4 years, trying to navigate to find the right stuff for my card is too much trouble, though it's better now than it was a couple of years ago. It would be difficult to convince me to buy ATI again, if for no other reason than being upset at how poorly they document and support my card, as though it's an unwanted step-child.
| Forum legend: | |
| Locked thread | |
| Moderator | |
![]() |
CNET staff |
![]() |
Samsung staff |
| Norton Authorized Support team | |
| AVG staff | |
| Windows Outreach team | |
![]() |
Dell staff |
| Intel staff | |