need help...upgrade graphic card

[babycheryl]

intel core 2 duo 4300 1.80Ghz, Intel 82945G Express Chipset Family,
Asus P5GZ-MX, got one PCI Express x 16 slot, which type of graphic card suitable for me to upgrade?thx you

[Kano]

Basically your cpu is a bit slow. You currently use 18*100 mhz, but you could try 18*133.33, which would be at least 2.4 ghz - this setting should be possible even with the cheapest boards, but maybe not every cpu works stable with it, but trying does not hurt - might require better cooling. Maybe try go get a used gtx 460 (best with 1 gb vram) or a 550 ti. If you want to upgrade your system soon then just get the fastest single nvidia gpu you can afford - avoid amd gpu.

[TobiSGD]

Keep in mind that such low power systems often come with low power PSUs, so that you may need to get a bigger PSU also for running a higher powered video card.

[Dandel]

intel core 2 duo 4300 1.80Ghz, Intel 82945G Express Chipset Family,
Asus P5GZ-MX, got one PCI Express x 16 slot, which type of graphic card suitable for me to upgrade?thx you

Basically your cpu is a bit slow. You currently use 18*100 mhz, but you could try 18*133.33, which would be at least 2.4 ghz - this setting should be possible even with the cheapest boards, but maybe not every cpu works stable with it, but trying does not hurt - might require better cooling. Maybe try go get a used gtx 460 (best with 1 gb vram) or a 550 ti. If you want to upgrade your system soon then just get the fastest single nvidia gpu you can afford - avoid amd gpu.

I do agree that the CPU is slow, however I would also like to point out that overclocking itself is not necessarily what is needed. I do not agree with the blind "avoid amd gpu". I think it's better to take a more informed guess on this and look at a current video card that meets the following requirements....

• OpenGL 4.0 capable ( Look for dx11 )
• GDDR3 or better memory ( GDDR5 is best currently )
• 128-bit memory bus ( This is important, this will decrease performance more than anything)
• 1GB of memory ( more is better )
• Dual slots ( Not required, it's more to improve system cooling)

Now based on this, A quick idea of what would be good is as follows...

• Radeon HD7600 line ( or higher )
• Radeon HD6600 line (or higher)
• Radeon HD5600 line ( or higher)
• Geforce GT430 (or higher) ( NOTE: Be careful of memory bus on this, make sure it's 128-bit )
• Geforce GT530 or higher
• Geforce GT630 (or higher)

NOTE: There is some amd gpu/cpu hybrids ( AMD A-series for example) and I did not cover those, but generally on those it's just a good idea to research where the support lands... I personally have had no problems with the A6-3400M cpu.

Keep in mind that such low power systems often come with low power PSUs, so that you may need to get a bigger PSU also for running a higher powered video card.

I actually Agree that a new power supply would be a must. For most standard desktop computers I would actually suggest a 500 to 750w range for power supplies.

[Panix]

Do AMD drivers keep up with changes in the kernel and X-Server (versions)? I seem to recall Fedora and Debian (sid) users who own AMD/ATI cards getting frustrated when there's upgrades.

Also, if you want to use hardware acceleration for your videos, AMD/ATI drivers are pretty useless from what I recall. Has something changed there? Gaming is another story but it doesn't concern me as much. It's probably a situation in which you are restricted or limited to Windows, ultimately, anyway.

I don't know if you have an advantage with one over the other regarding crashes, tearing or overall video quality or not. I need to update myself on that situation soon.

I have an ancient GeForce 7950 GT that won't be supported* anymore so I do think I will force myself to get something for real this time. If I budget $70, there's not much choice but used Nvidia cards are more powerful than equivalent AMD/ATI cards? I think only 6670 is available for that price or maybe used 5770? I can get a 460 for that, though, and not sure anything comparable via AMD/ATI is available at that price.

*yeah, I know... legacy drivers... nah.

[Dandel]

Do AMD drivers keep up with changes in the kernel and X-Server (versions)? I seem to recall Fedora and Debian (sid) users who own AMD/ATI cards getting frustrated when there's upgrades.

Kernel wise, it's somewhat up to date. However within 24 to 48 hours of the change in ABI that breaks the kernel module there is a fix already released.

X-Server, give at least 3 to 6 months for new ones supported.
NOTE: This is with binary driver only, if it's open source, these rarely break for long... Also, on the 3d side the Mesa driver is mostly usable.

Also, if you want to use hardware acceleration for your videos, AMD/ATI drivers are pretty useless from what I recall. Has something changed there? Gaming is another story but it doesn't concern me as much. It's probably a situation in which you are restricted or limited to Windows, ultimately, anyway.

I don't know if you have an advantage with one over the other regarding crashes, tearing or overall video quality or not. I need to update myself on that situation soon.

The binary hardware acceleration works, but between version breaks do occur. I honestly would recommend going with open source and using cpu based codecs until things fully catch up.

As for Open Source drivers, The basic data infrastructure is currently in place, but the actual api needs to need to be implemented. ( Mainly Shaders ).

I have an ancient GeForce 7950 GT that won't be supported* anymore so I do think I will force myself to get something for real this time. If I budget $70, there's not much choice but used Nvidia cards are more powerful than equivalent AMD/ATI cards? I think only 6670 is available for that price or maybe used 5770? I can get a 460 for that, though, and not sure anything comparable via AMD/ATI is available at that price.

*yeah, I know... legacy drivers... nah.

The best budget for AMD cards is around $100. And honestly the main reason i would say to support AMD in the first place is that they actively support ( and develop ) the open source driver functionality. Sure, it's not fully implemented yet, but that's hundreds of times better than the stance nvidia has currently. I personally would call the amd cards the better choice just on the general open source support they receive. ( Actually implementing the base functionality, AND providing technical documentation over the graphics cards is huge benefit)

[Kano]

You can be sure when you buy amd for mainly Linux use then you did something really wrong. Do you see xserver 1.13 drivers from amd? All i see are nvidia ones. Does fglrx support kernel 3.5/3.6 without patches? I don't think so...

[ChrisXY]

You can be sure when you buy amd for mainly Linux use then you did something really wrong. Do you see xserver 1.13 drivers from amd?

Yes, but they are hosted by freedesktop and have several additional contributors not from amd.

All i see are nvidia ones. Does fglrx support kernel 3.5/3.6 without patches? I don't think so...

Who cares? The fglrx kernel module has the source available and it most often only needs small fixes.

[Kano]

You can not use video decode accelleration with free drivers, nor can you play more advanced games and power management - mainly problematic for laptops - does not work correctly. So the main use is get a very basic card or use onboard and all you want is websurfing, office and some fancy desktop effects. You don't need to upgrade a gfx card for that, thats pointless.

Btw. why do you think it is good when users have to fix the fglrx kernel module compilation? It's not possible in every case anyway. amd should support at least mainline kernels out of the box - but thats not the case even several (!!!) months after release.

Btw. xserver 1.13 is final now, so where is the driver?