Graphics Card Comparison Guide 271
JaniceZ writes "These days, there are so many graphics card models that it has become quite impossible to keep up with the different configurations. Therefore, we decided to compile this guide to provide an easy reference for those who are interested in comparing the specifications of the various desktop GPUs in the market as well as those already obsolescent or obsolete."
speed of development (Score:5, Funny)
Re:speed of development (Score:3, Funny)
Is it any wonder this was the last card they produced?
Re:speed of development (Score:2)
Re:speed of development (Score:2)
Re:speed of development (Score:5, Informative)
It's a 'textured pixel'. Yeah, I know, that's not too descriptive. In 2D, when you draw a point on the screen, it's known as a pixel. In 3D, when you're filling a polygon with a texture map, every one of the pixels of that texture map is considered a 'texel'. That texel may be drawn of several pixels, but it's still one unit of that polygon that's worth measuring.
Article content is medicore at best (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Article content is medicore at best (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Article content is medicore at best (Score:5, Insightful)
Radeon 9800 Pro 128-bits 380 MHz 3040 MTexels/s 256-bits DDR 340MHz 21.76GB/s
GeForce FX 5900 Ultra 450 MHz 3600 MTexels/s 256-bits DDR 425 MHz 27.20 GB/s
The 9800 Pro has 1 additional vertex shader pipe, but the raw pixel pushing of the 5900U should be a good 15-20% faster than the Radeon.
Clearly that is not the case in the real world [tomshardware.com]
A modern graphics card has so many complex and intricate features and tradeoffs for performance and power and production, looking at a handful of stats isn't even a good comparison when we're dealing with GPUs of the same family, much less a wide ranging comparison.
If you want to know how something performs, there is no substitute for benchmarks.
Re:Article content is medicore at best (Score:2, Interesting)
If you look at an OpenGL game such as this one http://graphics.tomshardware.com/graphic/20031229
The stats _are_ a good indicator of performance in the same family. The performance of the 9700 through the 9800XT scales mostly according to fillrate and memory bandwidth.
Re:Article content is medicore at best (Score:2)
Clearly that is not the case in the real world
It is if you're running Linux, right? Seriously, I haven't seen any 5900 Ultra vs Radeon 9800 Pro Linux benchmarks, but I know NVIDIA has had a better reputation for Linux drivers. For that reason alone, I tend to favor NVIDIA products, even if their Windows performance is slightly worse.
Has ATI improved their Linux drivers lately?
Re:Article content is medicore at best (Score:5, Informative)
PCI-E 2005 [digital-daily.com]
ATI 2003 [slashdot.org]
for example
Re:Article content is medicore at best (Score:3)
here is correction [digital-daily.com]
Re:Article content is medicore at best (Score:5, Funny)
(Sadly, I'm not trolling or being a smartass.)
Re:Article content is medicore at best (Score:3, Interesting)
Choices are bad! Oh noes... I have to read a bit before spending over a few hundred dollars.
To be honest, if you are not intending to spend more then a hundred dollars your choices aren't so great. Older cards tend to depreciate to their relative value as per their capabilities.
With newer cards there is of course the tax for being a newcomer and the cost of the performance.
When I play this game, I start by determining how much I want to spend and then purchase the better performer in that range. At the point I'm buying a graphics card where all the questions are usually answered. (A new card for me is in the 220-250 range)
Those buying bleeding edge are either going to have to make a blind decision or put in some research time. This is pretty much the way all transactions above impulse buy work.
It's not a curse, it's not a problem introduced in the graphics card market... it's just how things work.
It's kinda silly to just point and buy something. (Though I did just buy my last car that way.. which was silly... but the price was right)
Re:Article content is medicore at best (Score:3, Interesting)
My main reason is that I can get any decent strategy or RPG game that I want to play on the Mac. Everything else, I can get for the console. And rather than maintaining two expensive high-end gaming PCs for myself and my brother, we can buy one copy of a game and have one machine that'll last us years. Much better than dishing out $110 for two copies of Unreal or Counter Strike: Source on top of the videocards and everything else.
Mostly, I just want out of the rat race. I have a spare bedroom filled with a couple dozen monitors and linux, solaris and windows boxes and several laptops. And all I use is my Powerbook. I'm undecided as to whether I'll use just the laptop, the laptop and buy a desktop mac on x86 later or if I'll stick with my powerbook and have a windows desktop.
Really, the only reason I would keep the windows box now is the same reason I kept a windows box in the linux/solaris world. Because it runs the games. I think I can do without Counterstrike and a couple other PC games and settle for Halo and Madden and GT4 on the console. Or at least, I'm going to try.
Re:Article content is medicore at best (Score:4, Insightful)
Cedega (transgaming's wine) rocks. I love it.
And I'm using a Geforce FX 5900, which runs all my games at 1280x1024, 40-50 FPS. You can get one for ~$130 at pricewatch or techbargains.
I've got an xbox and Ps2, but I just don't come back to those games the same way I come back to PC games.
*shrug*. I've tried to make the move. I've got a mac mini, a powerbook, and 2 consoles. I still like my x86 linux box the best.
Re:Article content is medicore at best (Score:2)
Personally, graphics cards did matter for a while, but I have never spent more than about $200 to get one, and the choice was affected by whether it supported certain 3D apps, but not games.
The Radeon 9500/9600 cards that I have do everything that I want except mirror the overlay pane, which was what I wanted for HTPC. I'm currently using an old Matrox G400, which DOES mirror the overlay pane.
Re:Article content is medicore at best (Score:3, Informative)
Really? When I bought my G5 tower I had the choice between a GeForce 6800 Ultra, an ATI X800XT, an ATI 9600XT, or an aftermarket ATI Radeon 9800 Pro.
If you *really* needed the choice you shouldn't have bought a Mini, Emac or an Imac.
No, you don't get all off the off-brand "XFX Sooper EXTREEM O'CLOCKED 78000GTX with Dual Inline Turbo" types of things, but there are choices for some of us.
Re:Article content is medicore at best (Score:2)
Re:Article content is medicore at best (Score:2)
You get your choice of ATI or Nvidia, PCI-X if you have a newer G5. There really aren't any other choices worth mentioning unless you don't play games...even then..
We seem to live in a dualistic world. Male or Female. Left or Right. Up or Down, Mac or PC, ATI or Nvidia, Intel or AMD. Linux and the BSD's are an affront to this order.
Whiffed... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Article content is medicore at best (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Article content is medicore at best (Score:2)
Re:Article content is medicore at best (Score:2)
Re:Article content is medicore at best (Score:2)
Re:Article content is medicore at best (Score:2)
Me dumb (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Me dumb (Score:2, Informative)
We really wouldnt need this type of thing (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:We really wouldnt need this type of thing (Score:2)
Yeah, why should all these capitalist commercial corporations be so insensitive as to confuse the question of whether their competitors make a better product?
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It _is_ a shame (Score:3, Insightful)
And if we are discussing naming conventions, I absolutely HATE Nvidia's naming conventions and really don't buy from them because of it. At least when I buy a 9600, I know its better than a 9200. But when I see
NVIDIA nForce4 Ultra
GeForce FX
NVIDIA nForce4 SLI
GeForce 6 Series
I have absolutly NO IDEA what is better...
Re:It _is_ a shame (Score:4, Insightful)
GeForce FX5200, FX5300, FX5700, FX5750, FX5900
GeForce 6200, 6600, 6800
GeForce 7800
nForce refers to motherboard chipsets. Regular is regular, SLI means it supports SLI, and Ultra means it's the highest performing model (which also happens to include SLI).
The only confusing aspect is the suffixes like GT (Ultra, GTX, LE) on the graphics cards, which can make cards with the same number have different specs. Of course, ATI does that was well (which is better: A Pro, an SE an XT or a regular?). In fact, the major difference between the naming schemes the two companies use is that the first number for a nVidia card is the generation the chip is from (4, 5, 6), while the first number in an ATI card is (supposed to be) the version of DirectX it's built to support (or, it was until the X series; they ran out of 9-based numbers, I guess). So for a time, ATI was actually inserting new 9x00 chips between existing 9x00 chips from an earlier generation. Are you sure that a 9600 is significantly worse than a 9700 in that situation?
nVidia's naming scheme is no more or less complex than ATI's. You're just familiar with ATI's product line, and rather ignorant (it seems) of nVidia's.
Re:It _is_ a shame (Score:2)
With the glaring, f'd up exception of the Radeon 9000/9200 series, which are DirectX 8 cards (as the grandparent stated). The 9000/9200 series were previous-generation cards (8500 series) renamed. Isn't that f'd up?
GeForce 4200, 4400, 4600
GeForce FX5200, FX5300, FX5700, FX5750, FX5900
GeForce 6200, 6600, 6800
GeForce 7800...
nVidia's naming scheme is no more or less complex than ATI's. You're just familiar with ATI's product line, and rather ignorant (it seems) of nVidia's.
You left out the GeForce4 MX, which was based on GeForce2 technology (DirectX 7), not GeForce4 (DirectX 8) as its name seems to indicate.
So far, it seems like only the "low end" cards have had misleading names. But "low end" buyers are the ones least likely to do the research.
Short list (Score:5, Informative)
If you want a fanless, low-power GPU that can also do light gaming, get a GeForce 6200 with as much onboard RAM as you can find (ignore the TC "TurboCache" crap).
If you want a midrange, not-too-power-hungry card, get the 6600GT. This is my favorite card.
If you need a high-end GPU, get a 7800GT. If you have money to burn, get the GTX version. Check to make sure your power supply is up to snuff (Seasonic S12 series is my favorite, highest efficiency I've found), especially if you did something silly like buy an Intel P4. If you can afford one of these you can afford a proper AMD 64-bit processor to go with it.
There, everything you need to know. The 6200 was a pleasant surprise to me. I put one in my parents' Shuttle SFF box (Athlon 64 3000+), replacing a Ti4200, and the lower power consumption was enough for the main system fan to slow down to its minimum 1000RPM most of the time. It's still good enough to play UT2004 Demo at full detail at 1280x1024 res.
Re:Short list (Score:2, Informative)
If you want silence, there are some fanless 6600's on the market. They may use too much power to run in a Shuttle, though.
Re:Short list (Score:3, Informative)
People will argue it in both directions, but they're just completely incorrect. My 4 year old GeForce works far better under Linux than my brand spanking new Radeon.
Re:Short list (Score:4, Interesting)
What is impressive about nVidia is that their brand-new hardware works just as well under Linux as the four-year-old stuff.
Re:Short list (Score:2)
However, on both fronts, I am using the proprietary drivers. On one front, I paid $300 for a card (included in a notebook), that will have devalued significantly by the time I am able to use all of its features.
Had I purchased an nVidia, it wouldn't have been a problem.
Re:Short list (Score:2)
My computers sounds like a jet engine.
Re:Short list (Score:2)
The 256MB 6600 apparently doesn't need a fan because it's not even close to performing as well as the 6600GT.
Nvidia Linux support (Score:5, Interesting)
I got a response about 20 minutes later which included a patch for the Linux kernel I was using. I recompiled my kernel with the patch and it fixed the leak.
It is too bad their drivers are closed source, but I have to say that their Linux support is outstanding and on a par with the best support I've experienced.
Re:Why not open them? (Score:3, Informative)
Yes, you did; several in fact.
* They've licensed some technology from 3rd parties, and can't disclose the related source code due to non-disclosure agreements.
* The GPU industry is encamped in a patent minefield. If they release their source-code, their competitors might find incontrovertible evidence that they have infringed on one or more of the competitors' patents. This would put NV (or ATI) in a costly legal position, even if the infringement was inadvertant. That's not an attractive proposition.
* Even if NV (or ATI) thinks their software has no trade secrets of its own, their hardware certainly contains features that they consider to be trade secrets. Unlike patents, trade secrets have no statutory protection, and so-- were they to become public knowledge-- NV/ATI would have little recourse. Open sourcing their drivers could potentially publicize many of these hardware trade secrets, either by inference, by deduction, or by explicit statement (like, comments in the source.)
If your hardware happens to be better than your competitors at performing some particular task, why would you want to tell your competitors how your hardware does it? (This is not to say your competition couldn't deduce such things via other technical means, but those other means are by definition harder. I mean, what's easier than reading a document your competition so graciously gave you for free?)
The GPU business, perhaps more than any other type of silicon business, is essentially an arms race, and so maintaining technological leverage is paramount. If you trip up once, you find yourself no longer the leader, and playing catch-up.
Consequently, forfeiting any advantage at all can be a financially devastating mistake.
nVidia and compatibility (Score:3, Interesting)
On my MythTV box, using a GeForce 4Ti 4600 card, I've run into lots of issues of nVidia changing around little details related to the card's ability to output in HDTV resolutions, to properly select or auto-detect which port the card is connected to (s-video, composite, or DVI/VGA) and other such things. It generally works well... don't get me wrong. But some of the optional parameters nVidia says you can specify in your XF86Config-4 file seem to shift around from version to version in their driver updates, and things that work fine in one release are broken again in the next. (Lately, I've had issues where the option to specify some "overscan" for composite or s-video output with an integer value between 0.0 and 1.0 seems to have no effect at all on my card.)
Re:Short list (Score:2, Interesting)
and if you want a graphic card with a Manufacturer's Warrenty you want to get an ATI. Seriously for certain card models ATI cards aren't that badly supported (even under linux) sure, most ati cards work better under windows than under linux (with a few exceptions) but if you're buying a gaming system and worrying about linux you're either A. dual booting or B. running some type of virtual machine set up, or C. planning on migrating down to 'linux' when you retire the system. and if you're building a 'workstation' you're going to be looking at the FireGL cards, and nvidia has nothing that compares to FireGL and the linux drivers for ATI products are Specifically written for the FireGL product lines..
so you be happy with your Nvidia card which has some dubious warrenty from some company who may or may not have a 'real' setup for providing warrenty service, and requires you to return the card to a retailer, who pays a $xx,xxx a year fee for the right to RMA defective products to the manufacturer. i think i'll stick with ATI, and if i need an ATI card to work under linux I'll be sure to grab up a FireGL card...
Re:Short list (Score:2)
Say that again? What about Quattro??
Re:Short list (Score:2)
nVidia also has the most complete and accelerated OpenGL implementation on the market. They have much more stable drivers than ATI, and the actually support their previous generation hardware. They don't tend to do massively bloated "we require 128MB RAM for our driver" type crap.
When ATI gets around to releasing a driver that actually loads on a new kernel, it doesn't work right anyway. nVidia gets you the advantage of as fast or faster performance on Linux, compared to Windows.
Also, why would you be needing a professional graphics card for a workstation. Perhaps you're using that "workstation" to do work instead of play games. I use my workstation to do programming and system/network administration. Why do I need a FireGL?
Every few years, I'll risk throwing money at an ATI product. I've been burned every single time that I've done it, dating back to my mach32 VLB card. They drop driver support, half-ass what they do have, but at least they've stopped making shoddy hardware.
Re:Short list (Score:2)
Re:Short list (Score:2)
Not quite; if you want a card that works using the Free XFree86/Xorg drivers and offers stability, future usability and 3D, then you want a Radeon upto the 9250.
If you don't care about 3D, you can buy pretty much anything you like, including on-board.
Re:Short list (Score:2, Funny)
Which Bastard? (Score:2)
I personally applaud and support AMD for bringing competition to Intel and dropping the retail cost of processors to a fraction of what they used to be, but on the other hand, I would like to know if they are truly some nefarious company?
I am interested in any evidence that you have to backup your statement but I am afraid that I will find that I have just been feeding another troll. Oh well.
They missed FPS (Score:4, Interesting)
So my question is why didn't they include this in there? They have a lot of good data but I just wish that someone would run all the video tests on each card and check out the FPS data on certain popular games and produce them in a nice chart similar to this one.
Re:They missed FPS (Score:2)
Re:They missed FPS (Score:2)
Ouch my wallet! (Score:5, Funny)
Wait... on second thought that wouldnt be cool at all.
When the mainstream magazines fail, (Score:3, Interesting)
However, this comparison guide is hardly a "easy reference". It's on the web, so give it some features. I want to sort, filter out columns, have side-by-sides comparisons, comments/ratings by users (or staff), etc.
I live in Japan now, where I can pick up a monthly computer magazine, and they have a section dedicated to charts on the latest CPU, Video, HDD, Motherboards, and Chipsets. The video chart, for comparison, has 14 different specs, all listed on one row, making it far easier to compare than this site.
The only advantage to the charts at the site in this story is that it will/does include old cards. But, as with other commenters in this thread, I say this story certainly feels like a cheap ad.
Suggestions for Linux PCI? (Score:2)
Anyone one to suggest a good PCI linux friendly card for the dock? Tried doing some research but PCI video cards aren't exactly popular anymore. Hard to find any hits that aren't after 02.
So far peformance is ok, but moving up from a 8mb ATI rage mobility seems like a a cheap way to get more performance. Especially for some of the bells and whistles I'd like to implement. (Maybe writing it in something besides Perl might give me some more leeway, but that's not negotiable).
Any suggestions?
My solution (Score:3, Interesting)
* I went to the latest review of VGA cards at Tom's Hardware [tomshardware.com].
* I chose the top 12 video cards from ATI and nVIDIA
* I created a spreadsheet which calculated the relative rankings of each card across about 30 different tests for a range of games/benchmarks. i.e. the top scoring card in a category got 100% and the remaining 11 cards were expressed as a fraction of the top score.
* I averaged the rankings for the 30 categories
* I used a local hardware search tool to find the current "buy it today" best prices for each of those cards.
* I divided the average ranking by the price to get a bang/buck ratio that can help to compare the cards. i.e. so a card that averaged 90% but costs AUD$600 would have a lower final score than a card that came in at 50% but only cost AUD$200
Unfortunately, the spreadsheet is at work but the 6600GT was a clear winner in terms of bang-for-buck.
All these 12 cards were good, and most of them were the only ones remaining in the extreme tests like high-res DOOMIII with AA sort-of-tests. So, even if a card only came in at 50% average, it was still able to work with all the latest games at reasonable frame rates.
YAG3DGCC! (Score:5, Insightful)
How about something that covers new ground? How about evaluating the features beyond simple stats and 3D performance in various games I'll never play?
I want to see a comparison that looks at these characterstics without regard to 3D FPS...
1) Noise level, idle and under load
2) Heat level and/or power consumption, idle and under load
3) DVI signal quality when pushed to maximum resolution & refresh rate - i.e. how long a cable I can hang off of it at what resolution
4) Video acceleration - mpeg2, mpeg2 for hi-def, WM9, WM9 for hi-def, h.264 and h.264 for at hi-def resolutions
5) Video de-interlacing support and quality - 3:2 telecine at what resolutions, how about 2:2 telecine, etc
6) Video scaling quality -- how many taps for vertical, how many taps horizontal, any fancy algorithms, test-pattern measured quality levels
Anybody and his brother can put up a speclist of 3D features or run a set of semi-standard 3D benchmarks and they already have. How about somebody with some real tools - oscope, multi-meter, pattern tests, etc do something new and useful to the REST of us for a change?
Re:YAG3DGCC! (Score:3, Interesting)
I personally would like to see a database like what storagereview.com does, and be able to cull out rediculous crap like graphics cards that take two slots. I'd also like to know what sound pitches the on-board fans use and how loud they are.
It seems like the people that buy the high end stuff buy without regard to practicality. It was bad enough that high end cards used two slot spaces but didn't need it for circuitry. Then there are rediculous modders that eliminated almost all useful PCI slots so they can use a CPU cooler on a GPU.
Re:YAG3DGCC! (Score:2)
Those things take effort and time. Turning on FPS counters do not.
Re:YAG3DGCC! (Score:2)
'No fan' is #1 on my list for my next card.
Nice charts, what happened to Matrox? (Score:3, Insightful)
Seems like they haven't really introduced anything new in quite some time.
Re:Nice charts, what happened to Matrox? (Score:2)
Re:Nice charts, what happened to Matrox? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Nice charts, what happened to Matrox? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Nice charts, what happened to Matrox? (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.matrox.com/mga/media_center/press_rel/
Re:Nice charts, what happened to Matrox? (Score:2)
Fanless video card Review with benchmarks (Score:3, Informative)
includes...
Rojakpot? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Rojakpot? (Score:2)
What ever happened to "Regular" cards? (Score:2)
I remember when 25 dollar cards were plentiful and DID THE JOB...
Not everyone that owns a PC is a gamer.
Re:What ever happened to "Regular" cards? (Score:2)
Re:What ever happened to "Regular" cards? (Score:2)
A More Concise Table... (Score:2, Interesting)
Do not post your website on slashdot.. (Score:3, Insightful)
OS Compatibility? (Score:2)
Worst page navigation EVAR (Score:2)
Where's Matrox's Parhelia? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Thank God (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Thank God (Score:2, Interesting)
Google for "6600GT infinite loop" and you will see what I mean. I have a 6600GT OC from BFG sitting *right here* on my desk, and why isn't it in my computer? Well, it seems like nVidia is staffed with whores who can't even code a device driver properly!
An equivalent ATI card *just works*. Period.
Infinite loop indeed, what did they do, outsource their driver development to munkeys in India? Total waste of my money, never again.. nVidia.
Re:Thank God (Score:2, Insightful)
6600GT "infinite loop": 7,900 hits. (Score:4, Informative)
6600GT "infinite loop" [google.com]. 7,900 hits.
--
If you support dishonesty and violence [doonesbury.com], don't say you are Christian.
Re:6600GT "infinite loop": 7,900 hits. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:6600GT "infinite loop": 7,900 hits. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Thank God (Score:5, Insightful)
I've had the opposite experience. The worst problem I've had with an Nvidia card has been trouble configuring the DVI display settings on a Linux machine. Eventually thanks to user forums I figured out the magic settings (and they released a driver update with those settings a few days later).
On the other hand, I've been burned by ATI twice on graphics cards. In fact on one of the cards (a card supporting TV in) they never even made functional Windows drivers, much less Linux. Even called ATI tech support on that one and they put me on hold on their charge-per-minute support line - yeah great support there. Funny thing is years after the fact some 3rd party wrote a generic driver for the chipset under Linux which made it work. (So in total ATI "official" Windows drivers never worked, and generic 3rd party unofficial Linux drivers did work)
So now I don't even bother to look at ATI specs. They could make whatever uber-card they want that outperforms Nvidia ten times over, and I still won't ever touch the thing. Twice burned is enough for me.
Re:Thank God (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Thank God (Score:2)
Re:Thank God (Score:2)
(The link is well hidden, though, so that you spend more time looking at the ads.) (I wonder if they got paid by ATI to put their page first?)
Re:8 year old card (Score:2)
Re:ditto, 3dfx voodoo 3000 TV (Score:2)
These old boards are still way better than the VIA onboard videos sold today in terms of 2D quality and 3D performance.
These cards are cool, reliable, and with rock solid stability (out of ALL video drivers I have used till today, Nothing beats 3dfx in terms of driver stability!)
I'm looking for a fanless 6600 setup right now, tho none of the local stores carry them
Re:ditto, 3dfx voodoo 3000 TV (Score:2)
My ati 9600 (256D) series is fanless. I know not the most hot gamer card on the market, but nothing to sneeze at esp considering it fetches a price under $60.00. I don't have bench marks but I noticed that pirates had game sequences such as dancing and "attack the town" where my old lame g-force 4 was so slow it was practicaly unplayable.
The TNT2 non-ultra editions were pretty spiffy and fanless, but I had some real dogs from Diamond. I returned my Viper 770 several times and finally gave up. Works ok if underclocked, but running at the standard memory clock it freaks out and gets worse as the years go on. I would have designated it a nice hand-me-down card otherwise.
Re:wow, what an utterly useless article (Score:5, Insightful)
There is no 'article text' because this appears to be a set of comparison charts, not a card discussion, and there is no explanation of 'what is what' because it is assumed that if you are comparing stats, you already know your subject. Finally, there is indeed an article navigation control at the bottom of the page. At least there is in Firefox, and also no Google ads for me, thanks to the same.
Re:wow, what an utterly useless article (Score:2)
What did Maximum PC do that makes you think they sold out? Just curious because I really like their magazine and enjoy it when they trash hardware even though it's advertised in the magazine. A few years ago Iomega had a two page spread for some new removable hard drive POS and in the reviews section they gave it a 2 out of 10.
--Ajay
A better reference (Score:2)
If people *do* care about older ones, the chart in the article is is incomplete (for example, it lists the Radeon 7500 but not the Radeon 7250).
This [erols.com] link contains both a more comprehensive set of graphics cards and more extensive information on each.
And it isn't covered in ads, as the one in the article is.
Re:Which GPU is best for scientific computing task (Score:2, Insightful)
The older AGP standard transmitted data to the card very fast but could only read it slowly. This worked well for the things that graphics cards traditionally do.
The newer PCI-e cards can read from the graphics card at a much higher rate.
Re:Which GPU is best for scientific computing task (Score:3, Informative)
In general, newer is better, but at the moment I'd go with nVidia, since their shader pipelines have much better branch support in the latest generation than ATi - something very important for non-graphics work.
AGP might it might not be a bottleneck, depending on what you do. You can get data onto an AGP card a lot faster than you can get it off, but if you're streaming data in and only want an cumulative result then AGP will be fine (render to target extensions in modern cards are great for intermediate results).
Re:Which GPU is best for scientific computing task (Score:2)
Re:But what about Linux drivers? (Score:2, Interesting)
By using Mac OS X.