graphics card advice/help needed.

[Sweeting]

Hi everyone.
I posted in an earlier thread that I was unable to run trainsimulator 2012 on my pc, yet I could run railworks 2 without any problem.
My problem is my graphics card, it does not support pixel shader 3. I have a Nviada fx55200 with 128mb of ram.

I have a dell dimension 4600 with a pentium 4-3.2Ghz, and 4Gb memory.
Now I have been told that my machine WILL ONLY RUN an AGP card with 256Mb mem, I'm not sure if this is true or not.
I was advised to get a GeForce 7600 GT 256MB DDR3 AGP video card as that would work fine, but I have searched everywhere on the web with no luck at all, the closest I can find is the GeForce 7600 GT 512MB DDR3 AGP, but am unsure if this will run on my machine.
Do any of you more technically minded people have any thoughts on this issue, and maybe tell me of a card that will run in my pc.
Or does anyone have a GeForce 7600 GT 256MB DDR3 AGP that they would be willing to sell me, I am in the UK
thanks for any help, as at the moment I am unable to run train simulator 2012
cheeres
vangellis

[markwhale]

Hi Vangellis

My previous computer was a Dell Dimension 4600 with a Pentium 4 3.08 ghz processor with 3 gb ddr ram, Nvidia Geforce 7600GS 256mb card.
Firstly, if I remember correctly, you will have PCI and AGP slots for the graphic but not a PCI Express, so you will be restricted on what level of card you are going to be able to install. With regards to the ram, if you are running Windows XP 32bit then it will not read more than 3.25 gb of ram. You can install 4 gb but Windows 32bit systems will not read more than 3.25. As far as the AGP cards, it is possible that it will not read more than 256mb but I am not totally sure on this, so I would check this out.
As far as the 7600 GT card, I would say that it is going to be the very minimum spec to run 2012 in very low setting. I ran RW2 with my GF 7600GS ok but it really struggled with RW3 at the very lowest setting. As far as running in TSX mode, I am afraid it stood no chance at all.
I have since purchased a new computer and running a much higher spec than the Dell but not without having to upgrade the card and the PSU. I would advise you not to rush out and purchase the GF 7600 without more advise as you may well be throwing good money after bad and be very disappointed in the results.
Hope this helps

Mark.

[vangellis]

Hi.
I don't suppose you still have that GF 7600GS card do you, if so I would really like to buy it from you.
thank's
Sweeting
(vangellis)vangellis
New to the Forums

ps, I forgot my login password and had to re-register as the "I forgot my password link isn't working

[nobkins]

@vangellis you have a PM.

I am afraid duplicate accounts are not permitted on the forums. Please reply to my PM telling me which account you want me to delete. I assume the "Sweeting" as you have forgotten the password for it.

Thanks

Jim

[vangellis]

@vangellis you have a PM.

I am afraid duplicate accounts are not permitted on the forums. Please reply to my PM telling me which account you want me to delete. I assume the "Sweeting" as you have forgotten the password for it.

Thanks

Jim

Hi
No I would prefer to keep the vangellis account please, if that is ok
regards
vangellis

[gptech]

Regardless of whether it has 256 or 512 MB of RAM, a 7600GS is going to struggle with RW--as Mark has pointed out.
Unfortunately you're stuck with AGP, and sourcing a decent AGP card is like finding rocking horse droppings.

Now I have been told that my machine WILL ONLY RUN an AGP card with 256Mb mem

That is wrong, a 512MB card will work quite happily--though you have one other limiting factor in that the 4600 series is fitted with a 'weak' 250W PSU so that may account for the advice given. It also only supports up to 4GB of RAM, so you cant particularly upgrade there either. My advice is to buy the cheapest decent AGP graphics card you can get hold of, just to get you up and running, and start saving for a newer PC.

[vangellis]

Thank's for the advice guys, I really appreciate it
vangellis

[Kromaatikse]

Pretty much anything will be an upgrade from an FX5200.

[markwhale]

The interesting thought is, why are most electrical devices you buy on the market now have been greatly reduced in size, where the graphic card is just getting bigger?. I was looking for a new mobile and being shown models with buttons so small that when you press 1 on the keypad you press 2,3,4,5 and 6 at the same time!!!. yet, when I took my GF405 out of the box, with this tiny fan lost somewhere in the middle, then, took my GF GTX560 out of its box and was gob smacked!!!. I am told the Radeon cards are bigger still!!!.
Reminds me of the days we had the stacking hi-fi systems which took most of the corner of your front room!! 10% components and 90% of thin air!!
Hi-Fi I must be getting old!!

Good advise, check before you buy, save you the tears latter

Have a good weekend.

Mark.

[quickthorn]

The interesting thought is, why are most electrical devices you buy on the market now have been greatly reduced in size, where the graphic card is just getting bigger?.

I'd guess it's to do with cooling, as top end cards have ever increassing power demands. I don't think you can get round the need for airflow/surface area to dissipate heat, until you get into water cooling etc. I think a lot of the bulk is to do with heat exchangers, fans, ducting and cowlings etc. Passively cooled cards are even worse for size...

[Kromaatikse]

Indeed it is mostly about power and heat handling. In some cases they have even had to rearrange the circuits inside the chips so that the hottest parts of it are spread out better. Some of these cards generate as much heat as a small floodlamp bulb.

Some review websites make a habit of taking the cards apart when reviewing them. In those cases you can see that even with the newest and fastest models, the chip itself is probably less than a quarter of a square inch. But then there'll be up to a dozen memory chips arranged quite close to it, and probably an inch-long strip of the card will be covered in power transistors, chokes and capacitors to supply power to it. All of this is covered by the massive heatsink and fan assembly which usually extends into the space for the next slot over.

In fact the individual transistors do keep getting smaller - but this is taken advantage of by simply stuffing more of them into the chip. A single graphics card can currently have upwards of 5 billion transistors on it in total. So the memory chips double or quadruple in capacity every couple of years, as does the transistor count on the major CPUs and GPUs, the clock speed probably goes up slightly across the board, and everything remains about the same size from year to year. The overall performance level is then set (for high-end hardware) by how much power the card can reasonably consume - which is why a high-end card usually has two extra power connectors on the end.

Phones can be small because they are specifically designed not to use too much power, so that the battery lasts a long time. As you discovered however, there's a definite limit on how small they can be made before they become unusable!

[markwhale]

So, until they develop a alternative system to cool things down, they could get even bigger as they make them more powerful!. The issue will always be, that the consumer want more realism, more detail and more speed, resulting in new generation advancements to meet supply and demand. If you look at the graphics on gaming over just the past five years, 2D images has been replaced with 3D graphics, this is all great stuff but always comes with a price tag. How many time have we changed graphic cards because we are not able run this game or that. A brand new system now is a old piece of furniture in five years average. The developer has to provide what the customer expects or be left in the shadows of rivals.
Railworks was a great breath of fresh air when replacing my MSTS and was hugely impressed on how much I liked it in comparison, then RW2 came along and updated for free impressed me further. Then a big leap in technology with 2012, again, a free upgrade with some fantastic features, but it is proving to be at a cost! How many people have paid to purchase a new system or upgrade their present one to benefit from the present features. Yes we can run in legacy mode and do away with the TSX addition, but forever in your mind that you have these features there in the background but you are not going to get them unless you part with some cash!
Do not get me wrong, I look forward to experiencing wonderful new developments that make my virtual world more realistic but with faster, bigger, better hardware to make this possible, what is the cost and where do we draw the line?
Mark.

[ttjph]

I'm not going to say that a 7600 will be the solution to all the OP's problems, but I'm running RW3 (TSX off) on a P4-3GHz with a 7600GS AGP, and the GS is not the limiting factor.

Per my recent discussions http://forums.uktrainsim.com/viewtopic. ... 2&start=75, I've been able to turn several GPU-related settings up to get the graphics card working harder, without reducing framerates - so the CPU is the limit.

Of course, if you have the budget to consider a significant system upgrade (or replacement) then that will clearly be the better approach overall - I'm currently holding out for a retired CAD workstation from work, but if that falls through then I think I'll be replacing my Dell with something less ancient, starting with a better processor and looking to Ebay a graphics card to match.

Having said that, £40-50 will currently get you a 7600 AGP on Ebay, so if you just want to get going again...