Graphic card comparison

  • Thread starter Thread starter LeeG
  • Start date Start date
L

LeeG

I have been having a problem with my new GT220 graphics card. (nv4_disp.dll
infinite loop.) I need to replace it and, due to this problem, I am
considering a ATI card instead. What I would like to know is what ATI card
is comparable to the nVidia GT250 chipset card. I am reluctant to use a
nVidia card in this machine because I strongly believe that it is a chipset
conflict of some kind.
 
LeeG said:
I have been having a problem with my new GT220 graphics card. (nv4_disp.dll
infinite loop.) I need to replace it and, due to this problem, I am
considering a ATI card instead. What I would like to know is what ATI card
is comparable to the nVidia GT250 chipset card. I am reluctant to use a
nVidia card in this machine because I strongly believe that it is a chipset
conflict of some kind.
Click to expand...

Did you uninstall the previous video card driver, before installing
the new card ? I like to uninstall the previous driver, put in the
new card, then install the driver for it.

I checked the Newegg reviews for various brands of GT 220, and for
the most part, they seemed to have problems with the fan or cooling
on the card. So some of the cards, cut corners too much on cooling.
You can use GPUZ and the sensor tab, to read out your GPU temperature.
If you see a high temperature, the problem could be as simple as
the heatsink assembly not making good contact with the GPU.

http://www.techpowerup.com/gpuz/

For example, my card right now is idling at 40C, as read out by GPUZ.

The driver situation doesn't seem to cover all OSes equally well, so
some people were not happy with the available driver.

If you've really given up on the card, the charts on Tomshardware are a
convenient way to compare performance. I don't always like the nature
of the benchmarks they use, but at least there are charts to look at.
(Since they change the version of benchmarks used, it isn't possible
to go back a lot of years, and compare to much older cards.)

The GT 220 is down near the bottom.

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/...uality/3DMark06-v1.1.0-3DMark-Score,1829.html

More charts here.

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts

Paul
 
Hi Paul.

Max recorded temp I have with this card is 68 degrees (under
Benchmark/stress testing conditions). Idle temp around 55 degrees. (I have
yet to have this problem when benchmarking/stress testing, only when running
games.)

I have gone through all the possible solutions and trawled through god knows
how many web pages trying to find a solution. Contacted nVidia, MSI, PNY,
inno3D. Each one is saying it is not their problem. I have good overall
cooling for my case.

It also looks like it is a problem with ATI cards as well.

I look at this problem and cannot seem to find a common cause. Different
GPU's, mobo's, PSU's, processors, games, drivers etc. The problem seems to
be a communication problem between the graphics card and the mobo. Almost
like there is a blockage, one thing waiting for another thing and then
finally giving up.

I always try to uninstall the previous drivers with anything and have used
driversweeper as well to make sure.

I initially got this card without taking too much notice of the relative
performance, I was more interested in the HDMI outputs and the cost, and must
admit that its performance is not that good. That is why I am looking at the
GT250 or ATI equivalent.

My main concern is whether I will continue to have this problem with the new
card.
 
LeeG said:
Hi Paul.

I found this site which I think is quite useful as a reference.

http://www.gpureview.com/show_cards.php
Click to expand...

I use that site quite a bit for comparisons, but I lack the skills
to convert all the functional unit numbers, into a "card strength".
Which is why I suggest a benchmark instead, as a safer rating method.

In terms of your original problem, I'd probably take a spare disk
and install a clean copy of WinXP and test again. I queue up all
my software first on the disk (on a separate partition), disconnect
from the Internet, and install the OS and SP3. Then give it a try and see
if it runs OK or not. (That means I'd be missing all the security
updates, but it should still work for hardware test purposes.)

I don't see a lot of evidence for PCI Express compatibility issues.
I think the design concepts used in PCI Express are cleaner than
AGP. There is no "aperture". The cards look to the OS like they're
on a PCI bus. The cards still do DMA for fast transfers. Interrupts
are message based, so there isn't even an interrupt pin on the
card. And in terms of compliance, there are very few issues with
PCI Express. The only one that comes to mind, is when the first
Revision 2 cards came out, and didn't negotiate down to Revision 1
rates properly. And that was fixed by a video card firmware update.
Other than that, the history of PCI Express, is amazingly clean.

Any motherboard that has real problems, likely comes with a warning.
There is at least one VIA chipset motherboard, where the motherboard
manufacturer gives a list of "compliant" video cards. That is a
warning that all is not right. But that particular case was
caused by the video slot not having full x16 wiring. If you
don't have a "bargain basement" motherboard (like the previous one
I was using), chances are you'll be OK. My video slot was only
wired x4, and that seemed to bother a few common video cards
(according to the compatibility list). Regular motherboards have
x16 wiring on at least one x16 slot, and then I would not expect
surprises.

Paul
 
I see what you mean about the number crunching but at least you can compare
the gpu and memory speeds to get a rough idea how each card compares.

Regards to the new install - tried it. Nothing seems to work. The display
driver gets stuck in an infinite loop. To me that sounds like it is waiting
for a set of instructions that are not arriving. I had a similar problem
with some VB6 programs. It would get to a certain point and then go into a
continuous loop. In this case the correct parameters were not being set at
start up. inserting a delay at start up allowed time for the parameters to
be set. I'm not saying this is the cause but something is not performing as
it should and I know, for definite, that it is not a hardware problem. (e.g.
PSU, Graphics card, mobo etc.) If it is a display driver problem then it is
evident in a few versions because even earlier drivers do not cure the
problem.
 
LeeG said:
I see what you mean about the number crunching but at least you can compare
the gpu and memory speeds to get a rough idea how each card compares.

Regards to the new install - tried it. Nothing seems to work. The display
driver gets stuck in an infinite loop. To me that sounds like it is waiting
for a set of instructions that are not arriving. I had a similar problem
with some VB6 programs. It would get to a certain point and then go into a
continuous loop. In this case the correct parameters were not being set at
start up. inserting a delay at start up allowed time for the parameters to
be set. I'm not saying this is the cause but something is not performing as
it should and I know, for definite, that it is not a hardware problem. (e.g.
PSU, Graphics card, mobo etc.) If it is a display driver problem then it is
evident in a few versions because even earlier drivers do not cure the
problem.
Click to expand...

Apparently, you can have hours of fun, trying to fix that problem.

http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=54242&page=1

At one time, when a video card driver crashed or froze, that was it.
The system was effectively dead, and you rebooted.

Then, someone got the clever idea, that if the video card and processor
stopped responding to one another for some period of time, they'd try
to restart the driver (called "VPU recover" ?). What you're seeing, could
be a lack of response from the card, within a certain timeout period,
the driver attempting to recover from the problem, and the problem happening
again immediately. That could account for the looping part of the fault, but
doesn't tell you why it stopped responding in the first place.

Paul
 
You could well be right. One thing I have noticed, and I am thinking of
asking nVidia about it, according to the specifications provided by nVidia
this card with the GT216 chipset has DDR3 memory at 800Mhz. The two cards I
have dealt with have DDR2 memory on them at 400Mhz. Could it be this chipset
is optimised for DDR3 and having DDR2 on the card is contributing to the
problem?
 
LeeG said:
You could well be right. One thing I have noticed, and I am thinking of
asking nVidia about it, according to the specifications provided by nVidia
this card with the GT216 chipset has DDR3 memory at 800Mhz. The two cards I
have dealt with have DDR2 memory on them at 400Mhz. Could it be this chipset
is optimised for DDR3 and having DDR2 on the card is contributing to the
problem?
Click to expand...

The comments section here, mentions they use both DDR2 and DDR3. The
clock rate on the memories could be a bit different. I think the largest
spread I've ever seen in memory performance, on the same nominal model number
of card, is a factor of 4. That is the difference between the card
with the cheapest slowest memory, and the best memory. There is a
lot of latitude for the manufacturer, as to what they can stick on
a card. It is one thing you have to watch for, when looking though a
set of product offerings.

http://www.gpureview.com/GeForce-GT-220-card-617.html

I don't think the memory type makes that much difference from a
design integrity point of view. Before a video card can be shipped,
the video BIOS file must be modified, to contain the correct memory
timing settings for the memory selected for the card. So the card
is tuned up, before it is shipped. I don't recollect too many cases
where that was done in a clumsy fashion - they usually manage to get
it right.

Your GPU is designed in 40nm techology, and likely has pretty decent
memory I/O speeds on it. When they connect DDR2-800 to it, I doubt that
taxes its abilities at all. The only question that remains in my mind,
is whether the memories used are well tested, before the card ships.
I don't know whether they have a short burn-in process, with
the GPU doing the "memtest86" on the chips. It would make
sense to do it that way. With the power of the GPU, you should be
able to run a memory test pretty rapidly on the card. If the design
wasn't optimal, the dropout on the production line would draw attention
to it fairly rapidly. At our old factory, if bogus cards are coming
off a line, a huge pile of bad cards starts to build up, next to the
test stations. For anyone that cares (the management), they eventually
notice the mess :-) The people doing the testing, hardly ever care
to tell somebody, that a lot of bad stuff is coming off the line,
but the pile of bad cards is a pretty good means of saying "I've got
a problem".

Paul
 
Fair enough.

With this infinite loop problem being such a long lasting problem, with
several different types of systems suffering, you would have thought that
someone would have found out the cause. There must be some common
denominator, however obscure, that could explain why this happens.

Concerning this card I wish I had access to the reviews I have recently
read. I would not have purchased this card for what I want. For a few
pounds more I could have purchased a far superior card.

One last question - Would you say that 1GB graphics memory on XP SP3 for
average gaming is a bit too much. When I upgrade to Win7 would it be prudent
to still stay with the 1GB or can you go to 512MB with no loss to
performance. At the moment it seems my FSX uses the most graphics memory but
this is below 512MB.
 
LeeG said:
Fair enough.

With this infinite loop problem being such a long lasting problem, with
several different types of systems suffering, you would have thought that
someone would have found out the cause. There must be some common
denominator, however obscure, that could explain why this happens.

Concerning this card I wish I had access to the reviews I have recently
read. I would not have purchased this card for what I want. For a few
pounds more I could have purchased a far superior card.

One last question - Would you say that 1GB graphics memory on XP SP3 for
average gaming is a bit too much. When I upgrade to Win7 would it be prudent
to still stay with the 1GB or can you go to 512MB with no loss to
performance. At the moment it seems my FSX uses the most graphics memory but
this is below 512MB.
Click to expand...

There is an article here, that tests various games with respect to
onboard memory usage.

http://www.yougamers.com/articles/13801_video_ram_-_how_much_do_you_really_need/

It looks like the reason a low end card, with gobs of memory is silly, is
because if you cranked up the level of detail to the point that it
really needed the 1GB of memory, the frame rate would be extremely slow.
You could have an extreme level of detail, but it would be a slide show.

A faster card, would make better usage of the RAM, assuming you like to
turn up the eye candy. My own usage pattern here, is I never use FSAA
or the like. I find, if the game play is immersing, I don't have time
to admire jaggies on diagonal lines.

I've also tested, in the games I play, with a little bit of anti-aliasing
turned on, and didn't find it that effective. I haven't repeated the
tests with my current card, maybe because I was so unimpressed with the
previous test results. Same thing goes with high dynamic range lighting.
Just a waste of time.

Paul
 
Back
Top