🚀 go-pugleaf

On Sun, 30 Jun 2013 06:47:05 -0600, Tanzen <waldby...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>Whoever said that is extremely prone to exaggeration.

Huh?  I assume this is some sort of troll attempt but I'll feed it
anyway.

The 450 was AT BEST a midrange card when it was announced. I saw one
review where it struggled to get 52fps in Far Cry 2, three years after
the game was released.  The 8800GTX I had in my system back then did
better than that.

That's the market Nvidia was targeting with the card.  They already
had faster cards out at the upper end before this was released. What
makes you think it was ever meant to be a high-end card?

On 6/30/2013 9:54 AM, Rin Stowleigh wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Jun 2013 06:47:05 -0600, Tanzen <waldby...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Whoever said that is extremely prone to exaggeration.
>
> Huh?  I assume this is some sort of troll attempt but I'll feed it
> anyway.
>
> The 450 was AT BEST a midrange card when it was announced. I saw one
> review where it struggled to get 52fps in Far Cry 2, three years after
> the game was released.  The 8800GTX I had in my system back then did
> better than that.
>
> That's the market Nvidia was targeting with the card.  They already
> had faster cards out at the upper end before this was released. What
> makes you think it was ever meant to be a high-end card?
>

Maybe he was going the other way

On Sun, 30 Jun 2013 09:57:13 -0600, Adam Russell
<adamrussell52@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:

>On 6/30/2013 9:54 AM, Rin Stowleigh wrote:
>> On Sun, 30 Jun 2013 06:47:05 -0600, Tanzen <waldby...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Whoever said that is extremely prone to exaggeration.
>>
>> Huh?  I assume this is some sort of troll attempt but I'll feed it
>> anyway.
>>
>> The 450 was AT BEST a midrange card when it was announced. I saw one
>> review where it struggled to get 52fps in Far Cry 2, three years after
>> the game was released.  The 8800GTX I had in my system back then did
>> better than that.
>>
>> That's the market Nvidia was targeting with the card.  They already
>> had faster cards out at the upper end before this was released. What
>> makes you think it was ever meant to be a high-end card?
>>
>
>Maybe he was going the other way

Possibly but I assumed not, because in another thread he is asking for
advice on games that won't tax his 450, and he worded his question
such that he seems to believe his 450 is typical for PC gaming
performance.

On 6/30/2013 10:24 AM, Rin Stowleigh wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Jun 2013 09:57:13 -0600, Adam Russell
> <adamrussell52@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 6/30/2013 9:54 AM, Rin Stowleigh wrote:
>>> On Sun, 30 Jun 2013 06:47:05 -0600, Tanzen <waldby...@yahoo.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Whoever said that is extremely prone to exaggeration.
>>>
>>> Huh?  I assume this is some sort of troll attempt but I'll feed it
>>> anyway.
>>>
>>> The 450 was AT BEST a midrange card when it was announced. I saw one
>>> review where it struggled to get 52fps in Far Cry 2, three years after
>>> the game was released.  The 8800GTX I had in my system back then did
>>> better than that.
>>>
>>> That's the market Nvidia was targeting with the card.  They already
>>> had faster cards out at the upper end before this was released. What
>>> makes you think it was ever meant to be a high-end card?
>>>
>>
>> Maybe he was going the other way
>
> Possibly but I assumed not, because in another thread he is asking for
> advice on games that won't tax his 450, and he worded his question
> such that he seems to believe his 450 is typical for PC gaming
> performance.
>

You guys are probably right.  I bought a computer 2.5 years ago and it 
came with a 315.  I'd like to think I didn't get screwed.

-- 
Walk

On Mon, 01 Jul 2013 03:38:43 -0600, Tanzen <waldby...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>On 6/30/2013 10:24 AM, Rin Stowleigh wrote:
>> On Sun, 30 Jun 2013 09:57:13 -0600, Adam Russell
>> <adamrussell52@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On 6/30/2013 9:54 AM, Rin Stowleigh wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 30 Jun 2013 06:47:05 -0600, Tanzen <waldby...@yahoo.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Whoever said that is extremely prone to exaggeration.
>>>>
>>>> Huh?  I assume this is some sort of troll attempt but I'll feed it
>>>> anyway.
>>>>
>>>> The 450 was AT BEST a midrange card when it was announced. I saw one
>>>> review where it struggled to get 52fps in Far Cry 2, three years after
>>>> the game was released.  The 8800GTX I had in my system back then did
>>>> better than that.
>>>>
>>>> That's the market Nvidia was targeting with the card.  They already
>>>> had faster cards out at the upper end before this was released. What
>>>> makes you think it was ever meant to be a high-end card?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Maybe he was going the other way
>>
>> Possibly but I assumed not, because in another thread he is asking for
>> advice on games that won't tax his 450, and he worded his question
>> such that he seems to believe his 450 is typical for PC gaming
>> performance.
>>
>
>You guys are probably right.  I bought a computer 2.5 years ago and it 
>came with a 315.  I'd like to think I didn't get screwed.

You probably didn't get screwed, since it's unlikely you paid what a
high-end gaming system would cost.

I personally think there is just as much value to be achieved by
buying at the high-end with a little planning, for example going much
longer between upgrades and reselling the old gear on the used market
to offset the cost of the new.  It works out to only a little more
than buying low-to-mid range and upgrading more frequently, and you
get a lot more enjoyment from the games in the meantime.

Tanzen <waldby...@yahoo.com> looked up from reading the entrails of
the porn spammer to utter  "The Augury is good, the signs say:

>Whoever said that is extremely prone to exaggeration.

I said it, quoting hardware reviews I read online.

It's 2.5 months away from being 3 years old (introduced Sept 13, 2010)
and it was aimed at the midrange market.

See for instance
http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Hardware/Reviews/NVIDIA_GTS_450/

You don't get high performance cards for less than $200, that's the
midrange/budget area.  High end is going to run probably $400 and up
(can get a GTX 670 locally around $400 up to the GTX Titan at $1079.)

You can get a lot of performance out of a modern midrange card, but
you'll never be able to max out all the graphic settings in a new game
(unless that game has graphics that aren't modern.)

My current card is a generation newer than yours (GTX 550 Ti,)
outperforms your card in every way, and was a midrange card when I
bought it a couple years back.   It was designed as a midrange card,
just as yours was.

Mine is still enough for me in most games simply because I don't use
FSAA and AF and if need be I can turn down/off shadows and not really
miss them, and I don't need more than 30FPS ever, giving me enough
performance for my needs.  In games that let you do it, reducing
particle count for physics stuff can also give a relatively huge
performance boost without changing the visuals much.)

You might find this chart handy for comparisons when your shopping for
your next card.   (Not a substitute for reading reviews about the
specific card(s) you're considering, but will give you a broad overview
of relative power.)

Xocyll

On 7/1/2013 8:05 AM, Xocyll wrote:
> Tanzen <waldby...@yahoo.com> looked up from reading the entrails of
> the porn spammer to utter  "The Augury is good, the signs say:
>
>> Whoever said that is extremely prone to exaggeration.
>
> I said it, quoting hardware reviews I read online.
>
> It's 2.5 months away from being 3 years old (introduced Sept 13, 2010)
> and it was aimed at the midrange market.
>
> See for instance
> http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Hardware/Reviews/NVIDIA_GTS_450/
>
> You don't get high performance cards for less than $200, that's the
> midrange/budget area.  High end is going to run probably $400 and up
> (can get a GTX 670 locally around $400 up to the GTX Titan at $1079.)
>
> You can get a lot of performance out of a modern midrange card, but
> you'll never be able to max out all the graphic settings in a new game
> (unless that game has graphics that aren't modern.)
>
> My current card is a generation newer than yours (GTX 550 Ti,)
> outperforms your card in every way, and was a midrange card when I
> bought it a couple years back.   It was designed as a midrange card,
> just as yours was.
>
> Mine is still enough for me in most games simply because I don't use
> FSAA and AF and if need be I can turn down/off shadows and not really
> miss them, and I don't need more than 30FPS ever, giving me enough
> performance for my needs.  In games that let you do it, reducing
> particle count for physics stuff can also give a relatively huge
> performance boost without changing the visuals much.)
>
> You might find this chart handy for comparisons when your shopping for
> your next card.   (Not a substitute for reading reviews about the
> specific card(s) you're considering, but will give you a broad overview
> of relative power.)
>
> Xocyll
>

I wouldn't be so quick to think you know what my card does.  I've seen 
pictures of the 450 on nVidia and they show a fairly usual looking card 
with a fan.  Mine is a European model, and most of the card consists of 
heat sinks.  There is no fan.  It's a GTS 450 Zone Edition Silent 
Passive video card. Maybe the specs are similar to the one with a fan, 
but I doubt they are identical.

-- 
Walk

On Mon, 01 Jul 2013 23:47:39 -0600, Tanzen <waldby...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>On 7/1/2013 8:05 AM, Xocyll wrote:
>> Tanzen <waldby...@yahoo.com> looked up from reading the entrails of
>> the porn spammer to utter  "The Augury is good, the signs say:
>>
>>> Whoever said that is extremely prone to exaggeration.
>>
>> I said it, quoting hardware reviews I read online.
>>
>> It's 2.5 months away from being 3 years old (introduced Sept 13, 2010)
>> and it was aimed at the midrange market.
>>
>> See for instance
>> http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Hardware/Reviews/NVIDIA_GTS_450/
>>
>> You don't get high performance cards for less than $200, that's the
>> midrange/budget area.  High end is going to run probably $400 and up
>> (can get a GTX 670 locally around $400 up to the GTX Titan at $1079.)
>>
>> You can get a lot of performance out of a modern midrange card, but
>> you'll never be able to max out all the graphic settings in a new game
>> (unless that game has graphics that aren't modern.)
>>
>> My current card is a generation newer than yours (GTX 550 Ti,)
>> outperforms your card in every way, and was a midrange card when I
>> bought it a couple years back.   It was designed as a midrange card,
>> just as yours was.
>>
>> Mine is still enough for me in most games simply because I don't use
>> FSAA and AF and if need be I can turn down/off shadows and not really
>> miss them, and I don't need more than 30FPS ever, giving me enough
>> performance for my needs.  In games that let you do it, reducing
>> particle count for physics stuff can also give a relatively huge
>> performance boost without changing the visuals much.)
>>
>> You might find this chart handy for comparisons when your shopping for
>> your next card.   (Not a substitute for reading reviews about the
>> specific card(s) you're considering, but will give you a broad overview
>> of relative power.)
>>
>> Xocyll
>>
>
>I wouldn't be so quick to think you know what my card does.  I've seen 
>pictures of the 450 on nVidia and they show a fairly usual looking card 
>with a fan.  Mine is a European model, and most of the card consists of 
>heat sinks.  There is no fan.  It's a GTS 450 Zone Edition Silent 
>Passive video card. Maybe the specs are similar to the one with a fan, 
>but I doubt they are identical.

I'd be surprised if the lack of fan on the card is the real issue as
much as the hot air is just not making it outside the case efficiently
enough (sometimes even seemingly innocent cabling can impede airflow).

As a cheap solution, you could try one of those dedicated fan cards to
divert air from the card.  Or go with liquid cooling for the CPU if
that appeals to you (less fans making noise).

One of the best ways to reduce noise is to have a powerful GPU.  It
will not be working as hard as your currrent one, running cooler and
having an easier time at it overall.  Alot of folks think bigger GPU
necessarily means bigger power draw and more heat but it's not the
case.

On 7/2/2013 4:13 AM, Rin Stowleigh wrote:
> On Mon, 01 Jul 2013 23:47:39 -0600, Tanzen <waldby...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 7/1/2013 8:05 AM, Xocyll wrote:
>>> Tanzen <waldby...@yahoo.com> looked up from reading the entrails of
>>> the porn spammer to utter  "The Augury is good, the signs say:
>>>
>>>> Whoever said that is extremely prone to exaggeration.
>>>
>>> I said it, quoting hardware reviews I read online.
>>>
>>> It's 2.5 months away from being 3 years old (introduced Sept 13, 2010)
>>> and it was aimed at the midrange market.
>>>
>>> See for instance
>>> http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Hardware/Reviews/NVIDIA_GTS_450/
>>>
>>> You don't get high performance cards for less than $200, that's the
>>> midrange/budget area.  High end is going to run probably $400 and up
>>> (can get a GTX 670 locally around $400 up to the GTX Titan at $1079.)
>>>
>>> You can get a lot of performance out of a modern midrange card, but
>>> you'll never be able to max out all the graphic settings in a new game
>>> (unless that game has graphics that aren't modern.)
>>>
>>> My current card is a generation newer than yours (GTX 550 Ti,)
>>> outperforms your card in every way, and was a midrange card when I
>>> bought it a couple years back.   It was designed as a midrange card,
>>> just as yours was.
>>>
>>> Mine is still enough for me in most games simply because I don't use
>>> FSAA and AF and if need be I can turn down/off shadows and not really
>>> miss them, and I don't need more than 30FPS ever, giving me enough
>>> performance for my needs.  In games that let you do it, reducing
>>> particle count for physics stuff can also give a relatively huge
>>> performance boost without changing the visuals much.)
>>>
>>> You might find this chart handy for comparisons when your shopping for
>>> your next card.   (Not a substitute for reading reviews about the
>>> specific card(s) you're considering, but will give you a broad overview
>>> of relative power.)
>>>
>>> Xocyll
>>>
>>
>> I wouldn't be so quick to think you know what my card does.  I've seen
>> pictures of the 450 on nVidia and they show a fairly usual looking card
>> with a fan.  Mine is a European model, and most of the card consists of
>> heat sinks.  There is no fan.  It's a GTS 450 Zone Edition Silent
>> Passive video card. Maybe the specs are similar to the one with a fan,
>> but I doubt they are identical.
>
> I'd be surprised if the lack of fan on the card is the real issue as
> much as the hot air is just not making it outside the case efficiently
> enough (sometimes even seemingly innocent cabling can impede airflow).
>
> As a cheap solution, you could try one of those dedicated fan cards to
> divert air from the card.  Or go with liquid cooling for the CPU if
> that appeals to you (less fans making noise).
>
> One of the best ways to reduce noise is to have a powerful GPU.  It
> will not be working as hard as your currrent one, running cooler and
> having an easier time at it overall.  Alot of folks think bigger GPU
> necessarily means bigger power draw and more heat but it's not the
> case.
>

If I take the case cover off, would that be a good thing?

-- 
Walk

On Tue, 02 Jul 2013 07:28:45 -0600, Tanzen <waldby...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>On 7/2/2013 4:13 AM, Rin Stowleigh wrote:
>> On Mon, 01 Jul 2013 23:47:39 -0600, Tanzen <waldby...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 7/1/2013 8:05 AM, Xocyll wrote:
>>>> Tanzen <waldby...@yahoo.com> looked up from reading the entrails of
>>>> the porn spammer to utter  "The Augury is good, the signs say:
>>>>
>>>>> Whoever said that is extremely prone to exaggeration.
>>>>
>>>> I said it, quoting hardware reviews I read online.
>>>>
>>>> It's 2.5 months away from being 3 years old (introduced Sept 13, 2010)
>>>> and it was aimed at the midrange market.
>>>>
>>>> See for instance
>>>> http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Hardware/Reviews/NVIDIA_GTS_450/
>>>>
>>>> You don't get high performance cards for less than $200, that's the
>>>> midrange/budget area.  High end is going to run probably $400 and up
>>>> (can get a GTX 670 locally around $400 up to the GTX Titan at $1079.)
>>>>
>>>> You can get a lot of performance out of a modern midrange card, but
>>>> you'll never be able to max out all the graphic settings in a new game
>>>> (unless that game has graphics that aren't modern.)
>>>>
>>>> My current card is a generation newer than yours (GTX 550 Ti,)
>>>> outperforms your card in every way, and was a midrange card when I
>>>> bought it a couple years back.   It was designed as a midrange card,
>>>> just as yours was.
>>>>
>>>> Mine is still enough for me in most games simply because I don't use
>>>> FSAA and AF and if need be I can turn down/off shadows and not really
>>>> miss them, and I don't need more than 30FPS ever, giving me enough
>>>> performance for my needs.  In games that let you do it, reducing
>>>> particle count for physics stuff can also give a relatively huge
>>>> performance boost without changing the visuals much.)
>>>>
>>>> You might find this chart handy for comparisons when your shopping for
>>>> your next card.   (Not a substitute for reading reviews about the
>>>> specific card(s) you're considering, but will give you a broad overview
>>>> of relative power.)
>>>>
>>>> Xocyll
>>>>
>>>
>>> I wouldn't be so quick to think you know what my card does.  I've seen
>>> pictures of the 450 on nVidia and they show a fairly usual looking card
>>> with a fan.  Mine is a European model, and most of the card consists of
>>> heat sinks.  There is no fan.  It's a GTS 450 Zone Edition Silent
>>> Passive video card. Maybe the specs are similar to the one with a fan,
>>> but I doubt they are identical.
>>
>> I'd be surprised if the lack of fan on the card is the real issue as
>> much as the hot air is just not making it outside the case efficiently
>> enough (sometimes even seemingly innocent cabling can impede airflow).
>>
>> As a cheap solution, you could try one of those dedicated fan cards to
>> divert air from the card.  Or go with liquid cooling for the CPU if
>> that appeals to you (less fans making noise).
>>
>> One of the best ways to reduce noise is to have a powerful GPU.  It
>> will not be working as hard as your currrent one, running cooler and
>> having an easier time at it overall.  Alot of folks think bigger GPU
>> necessarily means bigger power draw and more heat but it's not the
>> case.
>>
>
>If I take the case cover off, would that be a good thing?

Short term would reduce heat but just lets dust into places it
shouldn't be, and if reducing noise is your goal it's kind of
counter-productive.  I've known people that run their rig like that,
though.

Tanzen <waldby...@yahoo.com> looked up from reading the entrails of
the porn spammer to utter  "The Augury is good, the signs say:

>On 7/1/2013 8:05 AM, Xocyll wrote:
>> Tanzen <waldby...@yahoo.com> looked up from reading the entrails of
>> the porn spammer to utter  "The Augury is good, the signs say:
>>
>>> Whoever said that is extremely prone to exaggeration.
>>
>> I said it, quoting hardware reviews I read online.
>>
>> It's 2.5 months away from being 3 years old (introduced Sept 13, 2010)
>> and it was aimed at the midrange market.
>>
>> See for instance
>> http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Hardware/Reviews/NVIDIA_GTS_450/
>>
>> You don't get high performance cards for less than $200, that's the
>> midrange/budget area.  High end is going to run probably $400 and up
>> (can get a GTX 670 locally around $400 up to the GTX Titan at $1079.)
>>
>> You can get a lot of performance out of a modern midrange card, but
>> you'll never be able to max out all the graphic settings in a new game
>> (unless that game has graphics that aren't modern.)
>>
>> My current card is a generation newer than yours (GTX 550 Ti,)
>> outperforms your card in every way, and was a midrange card when I
>> bought it a couple years back.   It was designed as a midrange card,
>> just as yours was.
>>
>> Mine is still enough for me in most games simply because I don't use
>> FSAA and AF and if need be I can turn down/off shadows and not really
>> miss them, and I don't need more than 30FPS ever, giving me enough
>> performance for my needs.  In games that let you do it, reducing
>> particle count for physics stuff can also give a relatively huge
>> performance boost without changing the visuals much.)
>>
>> You might find this chart handy for comparisons when your shopping for
>> your next card.   (Not a substitute for reading reviews about the
>> specific card(s) you're considering, but will give you a broad overview
>> of relative power.)
>>
>> Xocyll
>>
>
>I wouldn't be so quick to think you know what my card does.  

I can google, I know EXACTLY what your card can do.

>I've seen 
>pictures of the 450 on nVidia and they show a fairly usual looking card 
>with a fan.  Mine is a European model, and most of the card consists of 
>heat sinks.  There is no fan.  It's a GTS 450 Zone Edition Silent 
>Passive video card. Maybe the specs are similar to the one with a fan, 
>but I doubt they are identical.

Your card is made by Zotac and they manufacture in China and ship
worldwide not just to Europe.

In fact it looks like your Zotac GTS 450 is actually weaker than a
standard chipset GTS 450.  The spec calls for DDR5 Vram, but Zotac uses
DDR3 on the Zone Edition and the core clock is MUCH lower (they actually
follow spec on the active cooled version.)

From
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Zotac-s-Passively-Cooled-GTS-450-Zone-Edition-Makes-Appearance-236042.shtml
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"In order to achieve this feat, Zotac had to lower the operating
frequencies of the GTS 450 Zone Edition as the GPU is now clocked at
600MHz, while the 1GB of DDR3 memory works at 667MHz (1334MHz data
rate).

In comparison, the standard version of the GTS 450 comes with a 783MHz
core clock and with 1GB of GDDR5 memory that is running at 902MHz
(3.608GHz data rate)."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

You use less power and make less noise at a CONSIDERABLE loss in
performance. 
(Oh and GTS 450s come with up to 920Mhz core clocks retail - EVGA active
cooled.  That's a full 50% faster than your card with faster Vram too.)

Your card was not only midrange, it was on the low end of midrange when
it was new, because it's "silent".



The link I put in the last post accidentally got snipped out when I
edited, here it is.

Video Card Hierarchy chart.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-graphics-card-review,3107-7.html

Xocyll