Choosing a nVidia Graphics Card

[Seventh Industries 8]

Hello Simmers! So today I'll share a article I've made to help you guys choose a nVidia graphic card for your computer system.

I copied and pasted this from the original forum where I've posted it.

Can't decide which nVidia graphics card to buy? Check out this little guide on nVidia's numbering scheme and how to choose the right card for you.

(NOTE: For this I am using Nvidia's scheme I think the HD Radeon series numbering scheme is the same)

Whether you want a true gaming computer to play Battlefield 3 with maxed settings or working with 3D programs.

A GPU will be needed to in order to do these. A GPU is a "Graphic Processing Unit" also know as a graphic card or video card. If you never heard of the numbering scheme I think this'll help you understand it more and could make your purchases much more easier.

(Second number)

1,2,3,4 = Low End or low performance

(Examples: 6200, 5200, 7200, 8200, 9200)

(Mostly GT Series)

4,5,6,7 = Mainstream

(Examples: 6700, 5600, 7600, etc)

(GTX and some GT series cards only.)

6,7,8 = High End or high performance

(Examples: 9800GT, 8800GT, GTX 560, GTX 460, GTX 580, GTX 570)

9 = Enthusiastic

(Examples: GTX 590, GTX 690, HD Radeon 7990)

So let's do it this way, GTX 500 series, the 5 or just 500 is the generation, the red 0 is where the performance number will be. So lets say GTX 590 the 9 is the performance number. Which is an "Enthusiastic" card, this card will keep you future proof for newer games and giving you decent frame rates.

Some people are fooled by the generation's number. The generation's number is the card's generation and not it's performance number. A Nvidia 9500GT card is not necessarily faster than a Nvidia 7800GT just because it's generation's number is higher and because the card is newer, but a 9800GT is faster than the 7800GT.

The generation adds new features and not it's actual performance which is the second number.

So the GTX 580 is a 500 series video card, it's performance level is 8, which is a "high end" card. Same with HD Radeon 7950. Their both high end cards, I guarantee you that you'll be able to play the latest games maxed out with AA and AF. Yes, the HD Radeon 7970 is slightly faster than the 7950, however you can always overclock the 7950 to get its performance to the 7970's level.

I don't recommend you to overclock it unless you have experience. Remember some games are more CPU reliant than GPU, such as Microsoft Flight Simulator X and mostly RTS.

Take a look at this graphic showing the card's performance levels and compare them and do not forget to look at the card's generation's number and performance number.

See that? The GTX 690's is all the way up there compared to the GTX 590. Look at the GTX 295 and compare it to the GTX 560 Ti's performance it is a little bit faster than it. Why? Because the GTX 295 is an "Enthusiastic card"

The GTX 560 Ti replaces the GTX 470 also.

Remember when buying a graphic card the CPU's clock speed can add a good boost in performance too.

When buying a game read the requirements to assure you have the right gear to run it.

Just because you are not getting 200 FPS during game play doesn't mean you cannot enjoy it. For me I do not care about the FPS. I care about how "smooth" the game is which is generally above 30FPS (for me when I experimented, everyone's eye is different).

I recommend however, to play the latest games today such as Battlefield 3 or Diablo III, get a GTX 460 or GTX 295 or higher. A 9800GT is pretty good for older games but not really today's hottest and latest titles!

If the game is smooth, don't do more tweaking to get 200FPS it is not going to make a very noticeable difference.

But I hope this little walkthrough helped with choosing an an nVidia graphics card! If you have some unanswered questions feel free to ask me or anyone who's experienced!

Please also be aware of bottlenecks that could be devastating on gaming performance as you will not be able to use the card's pure full power.

Remember a better and fast CPU will allow the GPU to perform faster, better, and stronger at it's full potential.

EDIT

[HD RADEON BUYER GUIDE COMING SOON]

Please be honest and give constructive criticism if you cannot give "constructive criticism" then do not criticize at all!

  Edited June 26, 2012 by Seventh Industries  

[hym 358]

While I, and I'm sure others, appreciate the article, I feel like this is basically advertising, and the General Off Topic forum isn't really for advertisements.

EDIT: Upon further discussion with the appropriate individuals, I have come to the belief that my initial concerns were mistaken and that the Simtropolis community is better served with the thread open for discussion.

[Ocram's Razr 963]

I was wondering what was the main difference between nVIDIA cards and ATI GPU's?

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Very little any more. Perhaps NVIDIA has a slight edge because they were around first (I think). Initially ATI stuff was the pits, and now they are gone, swept up by AMD.

[Seventh Industries 8]

Yes, very little difference between those cards. But from my experience Nvidia does better in some games while AMD does better in others. So it's like 50/50.

[Jim14409 448]

Glad I found this post! I want to upgrade my system and have been looking at video cards online for the last two days until I am cross-eyed. I play mostly SC4, Railroads, Tropico, Dawn of Discovery, and similar games so I don't need the super high end cards. Since my plugin folder for SC4 has reached 1.15 GB (and I want more!) some of my cities are beginning to get jerky. I can't do everything right now but not sure whether to upgrade the video card or add more memory.

My current set up has a Windows Experience Index (WEI) of 5.4 with the "Gaming Graphics" score being the low score among the other scores of 5.9.

My HP Specs are:

Windows Vista Home Premium 64 bit

Intel Core Quad CPU Q9400 @ 2.66 GHz

4GB RAM (can double to 8 max)

GeForce 9500 GS 512 MB

Quote: "The 9500 GS is an OEM card that's based on the 9500 GT but geared towards the mainstream audience.

65 nm G96 GPU

32 Stream Processors.

8 Raster Operations (ROP) units

550 MHz Core, with a 1375 MHz unified shader clock.

8.8 billion texels/s Fillrate.

128/512 MB 1000 MHz DDR2 memory with a 128-bit memory bus.

16.0 GB/s memory bandwidth.

Supports DirectX 10, Shader Model 4.0, OpenGL 3.3, and PCI-Express 2.0

Supports 2nd generation PureVideo HD technology with partial VC1 decoding.

NVIDIA SLI - ready technology

HDMI technology Support" End quote.

My power supply is 460 watts and motherboard is Asus IPIBL-TX or Burbank - GL8E Micro ATX 9.6 x 9.6 (24.4 x 24.4 cm)

I'm thinking I should upgrade the video card first since it shows the weaker score then max out the memory. What do you guys think? Your information and opinions are appreciated. WHICH should I do? If it is the card do you have suggestions? I'm trying to stay below $150.

Many thanks for any help.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

More video memory would help.

Because of the limitation on SC4 (legacy 32-bit), more RAM won't help for this game. However, with a quad processor, I personally would take the memory up to 8GB (2 GB per core).

I would also seriously consider upgrading from Vista to Windows 7.

You don't need the most wondrous hardware to run SC4, but of the others I cannot say.

[Jim14409 448]

More video memory would help.

Because of the limitation on SC4 (legacy 32-bit), more RAM won't help for this game. However, with a quad processor, I personally would take the memory up to 8GB (2 GB per core).

I would also seriously consider upgrading from Vista to Windows 7.

You don't need the most wondrous hardware to run SC4, but of the others I cannot say.

Thanks for responding Nonny.

I was thinking video card instead of memory but did not think about the 32 bit thing limiting memory usage. I know on Railroads I had to use the command line to enable it to use 3GB so I guess the problem may be similar with SC4 (?).

As for Windows 7. What is wrong with Vista? I keep hearing how terrible it is but I have had FAR fewer problems with it than I ever did XP. Seems I read how terrible every version is/was when a new one comes out. Anyway, I don't imagine I will change anytime soon, but appreciate the advice and would like to know the reason. Thanks again.

[Ocram's Razr 963]

Windows Vista is much better now that it has had its service packs and is now almost as stable as Windows 7.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

I suggested upgrading to Windows 7 (hardly different from Vista now) because Vista will very soon be at the second level of support. When W8 becomes available, you can expect support for Vista to be short-listed for removal.

Since Vista was effectively a public Beta for Windows 7, perhaps a cautionary upgrade would be wise.

If 8 is as big a fiasco as I expect, 7 may be the last viable MS O/S for a long time.

Frankly, my upgrade from XP was to Linux.

  Edited August 8, 2012 by A Nonny Moose  

[Jim14409 448]

If 8 is as big a fiasco as I expect, 7 may be the last viable MS O/S for a long time.

Something to think about I suppose. Thanks.