Jump to content

Graphics card recommendations


hjalfi
 Share

Recommended Posts

Can anyone suggest a reasonable budget PC graphics card that works well with KSP? Preferably fanless, if possible...

Right now I have a heavily customised GT9500 which is pretty good --- it runs Portal 2 seamlessly at high settings --- but it doesn't get on with KSP: to get a decent framerate I have to run at 1024x768 with all the various low-quality hacks. As the card is now several years old it would seem like a good excuse to upgrade. Plus, having shadows that worked would make landing on Mün loads easier.

I'm totally out of touch with modern graphics cards. What's the current sweet spot in price:power?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Geforce gt610 2gb has a fan requires no power supply its what i use works great and is small pcie 2.0 also 610 is 70$ and better than the 510 that i had before.

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/EVGA+-+GeForce+GT+610+2GB+DDR3+PCI+Express+2.0+Graphics+Card/5608231.p?id=1218672938148&skuId=5608231 its ddr3 and will work onces you hope to gddr5 price can double or tripple. but this is a damn good card.

Edited by [email protected]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally I like Radeon HD cards better then NVidia cards. Radeon cards seem generally more reliable to me. I have my ATI Radeon HD 4850 almost for half a decade and it still runs good even though it is heavily overclocked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alas, I'm a Linux user, and the ATI drivers for Linux are dreck, so NVidia it has to be. But lots of good afvice here --- thanks, everyone!

Didn't Linus Torvalds recently and publicly tell Nvidia to f*ck itself at a conference? He said Nvidia has been the most difficult company to work with regarding openness and Linux driver development.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've had the opposite experience. Currently running a radeon 5870, and its given me quite a bit of grief with unstable drivers, random display issues etc. Avoid the 5000 line if you can. I suppose its a bit outdated now, but still.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the takeaway is that when it comes to Linux and gaming, all bets are off, unfortunately. I use a platform that also gets marginal support (Mac), but it know the situation is worse on Linux.

I think this thread is turning into a Nvidia/AMD fanboy war btw.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah guys, there's no need to claim one is better than another, all that really matters is if it plays our games or not, I only went for AMD this time as I couldn't get Thief to run on an nvidia card, something about the supported colour modes.

I can only recommend the cards I am currently using, the HD4580 in my desktop and the nvidia6600 in my laptop, as those are the only cards I have direct experience with, both run KSP quite well for me and I even tried the Linux Nouveau drivers, those were very slow but they did work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've had the opposite experience. Currently running a radeon 5870, and its given me quite a bit of grief with unstable drivers, random display issues etc. Avoid the 5000 line if you can. I suppose its a bit outdated now, but still.

The newer versions have all of the same problems afaik, just like the older versions.

It's never any ONE huge problem either, just a bunch of little annoying ones.

"I think this thread is turning into a Nvidia/AMD fanboy war btw."

Not really, they each have their good and bad points, and to ignore well known issues because it seems "biased" to some is not a good thing for a potential buyer.

Edited by _Aramchek_
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I think this thread is turning into a Nvidia/AMD fanboy war btw."

Not really, they each have their good and bad points, and to ignore well known issues because it seems "biased" to some is not a good thing for a potential buyer.

I was trying to imply that I am an unabashed AMD fanboy, so don't give me any fuel, heh. The reality is that there is just as much evidence for and against each graphics hardware platform on Linux. Linux is still like the wild west that way, everything is up in the air.

I just though Linus's recent remarks were kind of a touchstone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had read on the unity website, something about gpu physx in the next update of the engine, if so, this will be a decent advantage for nvidia cards.

(Not to mention more trouble free drivers)

Assuming the devs of KSP upgrade to that version when it comes out.

It would actually be quite nice - I'm running dual video cards, with one dedicated to graphics, the other dedicated to PhysX. I'd very likely get a substantial performance boost on the physics if they started using PhysX.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess the basic rule is: Low and Mid-End cards=AMD(ATI) Mid High-End cards= NVIDIA

My opinion: I extremely dislike NVidias marketing strategy. All that "exclusive" for NVidia stuff and all these advertisements just look so "mainstreamish". Also generally their marketing and management seem kind of douche bag y - ish. If that makes any sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Moderator Comment: Enough with the card-maker-bashing already! Opinions of the management and marketing of the makers are irrelevant, off-topic and unhelpful.

Stick to telling the rest of us which card you use and how well it performs, preferably with FPS figures rather than subjective statements, as one person's "crawls" is another person's "fine for me".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That would be a pain for non nvidia users, as well as Linux users as I'm pretty sure the Linux drivers just don't support it, does the Mac driver have PhysX support?

No, it wouldn't change anything for AMD/ATI users, it would just enable gpu physx for nvidia users.

The game engine already uses physx, it just doesn't enable gpu acceleration as of right now, it's all on the cpu.

To add, with my 560 GTX TI, minimum fps is...well depends on how huge the rocket is...lol, but usually it's around 30 fps at the lowest, some dips below if I have a lot of struts/etc., but average once in flight, is around 70-140.

With the way the game engine currently is, I'd wager it's far more cpu bound than gpu bound, biggest gains are likely to come from overclocking the cpu or getting a faster one rather than the video card.

Unless hardware physx happens.

Edited by _Aramchek_
Link to comment
Share on other sites

PhysX came and went. The industry has passed it by for years now. It went from being a hardware specific locked solution to being a platform locked solution, ie not much better.

Why is anyone still talking about PhysX? It's proprietary, it has no future.

Edited by segaprophet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

PhysX is being pushed by Nvidia for its graphical bling, not for its actual physics capabilities, anyway PhysX should really have it's own thread in Off-Topic.

This thread as well is mainly concerned with GFX cards, rather than KSP, so it should be in Off-Topic as well.

I'll move it :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...