Nvidia Go Boom (Graphics card crap)

[Count Four]

Windows XP SP2 Media Center
Nvidia GeForce 6150LE

Computer crashed randomly during normal operations. Computer crashed repeatedly on Windows boot up, requiring repeated attempts to get Windows to start. It didn't crash in Windows Safe Mode; after awhile in Safe Mode, it booted Windows in normal mode just fine.

I've narrowed this down to the graphics card, via PC Doctor. All other diagnostics turn out fine; attempting to run PC Doctor test on the graphics card causes the computer to crash as soon as PC Doctor's test animation starts.

Okay, so I need (probably) a new graphics card. I'm not surprised, this machine isn't exactly new.

(I'm curious, though, exactly why this is happening--what goes wrong with a graphics card that makes it start shitting the bed?)

But what I really need to know is HOW do I find out what new graphics cards are compatible for this machine? What info do I need about the machine? What info do I need about a potential new graphics card? I'll probably be ordering a new card over the internet, rather than taking the machine to a computer repair shop or something like that, so it'd help if I know how to get these infos myself.

In the meantime, what can I do to reduce crashes with the failing card? (I need to back shit up, which might be kind of hard with the computer biting the big one at random moments.)

[Hegelian]

You would need a test bench and specialized equipment (and knowledge) to determine which circuit or component of the video card is failing. Although, if the fan is not spinning when the machine is running, that would be the obvious first place to start.

The GeForce 6150LE is a graphics controller integrated into a motherboard with an nVidia nForce chipset. Do you actually have a stand-alone graphics board that plugs into a socket on the motherboard?


Assuming that the motherboard in your PC will accept a stand-alone graphics card:

To choose a new video card, you need to know how old the PC is; i.e., is it so old that it requires an AGP card or is it sufficiently new to use a PCI-E card? You can probably get this information from Windows's Device Manager (right-click the My Computer icon, choose Properties, select the Hardware tab, and then click the Device Manager button).  Under Display Properties, your graphics controller will be listed. If it doesn't state AGP or PCI-E, Google the part to find out. Alternatively, you can right-click on the desktop, choose Properties to open Display Properties, choose the Advanced button on the Settings tab, and choose the Adapter tab to see your graphics controller (video card). If neither of these options gives you the interface information (AGP or PCI-E), you should open the case and find the model number printed on the motherboard, and then look up the specifications at the manufacturer's Web site.

If you need a PCI-E card, then it's pretty easy to make a choice. Tom's Hardware has a handy monthly feature on "best video boards for the money" for a variety of budget levels. At the present time ATI's Radeon HD 4600 series is excellent value for the money, particularly the  HD4670 at around US$65. Although not from this series, we have both an RX3870 and an R4830 from MSI, and they have been excellent performers at attractive prices.

If you need an AGP board, your options are quite limited, as this is now an obsolete technology. Although you can buy new AGP boards, the AGP versions of ATI's HD-series boards are reportedly plagued by bad AGP drivers, so your best bet is probably eBay, where you can get a high-end Radeon X800-series board for less than US$100.

If you cannot install a stand-alone video board in your computer, it is time for a new PC. Given the age of the GeForce 6150LE, it is likely that the upgrade path for your present machine is close to non-existent, and probably not worth the cost in comparison from ordering a new PC from HP.

I can't tell you anything about nVidia-based products. However, you will need to delete all the nVidia drivers and nVidia video apps from your computer before installing a new board (no need to delete the nVidia DDS tools if you have them). However, since your graphics controller is probably integrated with the motherboard, you will need to be careful to delete only the video drivers, and not the motherboard chipset drivers.

Assuming your motherboard has built-in graphics, you will need to disable the on-board graphics, either in the BIOS, by a jumper setting on the motherboard, or both. You will need the user manual for the motherboard to determine the correct procedure.

[J. M. Pescado]

Woah, shit, they're up to 4600s now? I wonder how those compare to my aging X1950. I mean, I've known there were better for some time now, but I've just never had an actual REASON to upgrade, since everything runs at acceptable speed.

[Hegelian]

Woah, shit, they're up to 4600s now? I wonder how those compare to my aging X1950. I mean, I've known there were better for some time now, but I've just never had an actual REASON to upgrade, since everything runs at acceptable speed.

Actually, the 4000 series is (now) a mid-range line. The top line is the HD 5000 series.

The new GPUs have more renderers and pixel pipelines (especially the latter) than the older boards, and they support DX10 in hardware. In some ways the most attractive feature is that many of them offer lower power requirements (hence less heat and noise) than older boards with equal or lesser performance.

For example, a typical X1950 Pro features the following:

Core Clock     575MHz
PixelPipelines    12(36 Pixel shader processor )
Memory Clock    1380MHz
Memory Size    256MB
Memory Interface    256-bit
Memory Type    GDDR3


The MSI R4670-MD512 features:

Core Clock        750MHz
Stream Processors  320 Stream Processing Units
Memory Clock       1600MHz
Memory Size       512MB
Memory Interface  128-bit
Memory Type       GDDR3
Price:  $65.00 less $10 mail-in rebate


The MSI R5970-P2D2G features:

Core Clock               725MHz
Stream Processors  3200 (1600 x 2) Stream Processing Units
Memory Clock       1000MHz (4.0Gbps)
Memory Size       2GB
Memory Interface   512 (256 x 2)-bit
Memory Type       GDDR5
Supports DX11 in hardware
Price:  $650.00


Speaking of good old technology, for an AGP machine I have just picked up from eBay a new X850 XT. This was the most powerful gaming board available when it was released, at a MSRP of US$550. I got it for US$65 shipped.  

[J. M. Pescado]

I wonder what the purpose of all those new cards is...because I haven't encountered anything that doesn't run on my aging X1950 at full settings.

[Hegelian]

Well, usefulness is in the eyes of the beholder; but see my modified post above.  

Some current shooters stress even the most advanced gaming boards when set to high resolutions (1900x1200 or whatever) with full anti-aliasing and other eye candy (or so I've read).

[Count Four]

Thanks, Hegelian. All that info will help a lot.

Meantime, I've tracked down the specs for the motherboard. That says, yes, the chipset is GeForce 6150, but that the motherboard "supports PCI Express x16 graphics cards".

The computer is a Presario, vintage 2006. (One of the little stickers on the case says "Designed for Windows XP, Windows Vista Compatible", though of course it was built to minimum specs needed for either.  ) It's still got a little elbow-room for some upgrades, if I can be bothered.

Another question, while I'm thinking of it. Could a problem with the driver (became corrupted, maybe) be causing these crashes, or would that cause even worse problems than the ones I'm having? The random crashes tend to happen only when doing graphics intensive stuff, such as using IrfanView, or starting a game like Sims 2 or Fable. As of now, I've been surfing and reading stuffs for several hours with no crashes.

[J. M. Pescado]

Some current shooters stress even the most advanced gaming boards when set to high resolutions (1900x1200 or whatever) with full anti-aliasing and other eye candy (or so I've read).

So, in other words, a purely masturbatory exercise, as no one can actually PLAY under those conditions, because everything looks like a flashbang went off in your face from all the blurring and bloom.

[Hegelian]

Some current shooters stress even the most advanced gaming boards when set to high resolutions (1900x1200 or whatever) with full anti-aliasing and other eye candy (or so I've read).

So, in other words, a purely masturbatory exercise, as no one can actually PLAY under those conditions, because everything looks like a flashbang went off in your face from all the blurring and bloom.

Lol! Well, who knows what 18-year-old eyes can see these days? Perhaps they're better "trained". In any case, it appears the game against which all graphics boards are measured is Crysis. Here are some benchmark results for the PowerColor Radeon HD 5870 LCS; at these extreme settings, note the minimum frame rate of 3 fps. (I've seen some suggestions on the interwebs that the high hardware demands of Crysis are the result of inefficient coding, but have no way to verify the claim).





Even at more reasonable settings (no AA, for example), performance from this high-end board is mediocre at best with this title:





Note also that under full load this board draws 330W in stock configuration, and 500W+ when overclocked. Better have a beefy power supply for this guy. MSRP is US$515. Click here for the full test.

Oh, and its water-cooled out of the box.   

 Here are the specs:

Model     LCS HD5870
Core Speed    875MHz
Memory Speed    1250MHz (5.0Gbps)
Memory    1GB GDDR5
Memory Bandwidtd    256bit
DirectX®    11

Meantime, I've tracked down the specs for the motherboard. That says, yes, the chipset is GeForce 6150, but that the motherboard "supports PCI Express x16 graphics cards".

Then you're good to go for less than US$100, as long as your power supply can support the board you buy. The PSUs in prebuilt machines from the big vendors are often uber-cheap and barely adequate to run the default parts, so you may be looking at a graphics/PSU double switch. Make sure the motherboard can accept aftermarket PSUs; Dell, for example, is notorious for using non-standard PSU connectors that cause the motherboard to burn out if you install an aftermarket unit. This is probably less likely with a PC from HP/Compaq.

Another question, while I'm thinking of it. Could a problem with the driver (became corrupted, maybe) be causing these crashes, or would that cause even worse problems than the ones I'm having? The random crashes tend to happen only when doing graphics intensive stuff, such as using IrfanView, or starting a game like Sims 2 or Fable. As of now, I've been surfing and reading stuffs for several hours with no crashes.

Given the symptoms you describe, it is most likely a problem with the graphics hardware rather than the driver. A driver problem is not impossible, but I would think it would be more consistent than what you report. The crashes appear to occur when you place the graphics controller under stress, which suggests hardware rather than drivers. But there's no harm in deleting the installed drivers and trying updated ones. I'm afraid I can't give you any guidance about which versions of the nVidia drivers are good and which to avoid, however.

[J. M. Pescado]

Yes, but note also that the resolution being drawn is COMPLETELY UNREASONABLE. Who the hell HAS a monitor like that?

[Count Four]

Given the symptoms you describe, it is most likely a problem with the graphics hardware rather than the driver. A driver problem is not impossible, but I would think it would be more consistent than what you report. The crashes appear to occur when you place the graphics controller under stress, which suggests hardware rather than drivers. But there's no harm in deleting the installed drivers and trying updated ones. I'm afraid I can't give you any guidance about which versions of the nVidia drivers are good and which to avoid, however.

*nods* The way it's acting, I believe it's a hardware problem, but it never hurts to ask. (I might try a new driver, just on the off chance.) Now, if I could figure out why these things always happen when I'm busy as hell anyway, I'd have all the answers I need. 

Yes, but note also that the resolution being drawn is COMPLETELY UNREASONABLE. Who the hell HAS a monitor like that?

Guys who are too socially maladjusted to have a life?

[Hegelian]

Yes, but note also that the resolution being drawn is COMPLETELY UNREASONABLE. Who the hell HAS a monitor like that?

I'm not in disagreement with you here. Anyway, don't serious gamers turn down the graphics quality to ensure maximum speed??

Maybe the tech-geek guys are playing with maxed-out graphics on HDTVs, using the HDMI output on these boards? Just wondering, since I don't know if an HDTV could support those kinds of resolutions or have a fast enough response time.

My relatively low-cost wide-screen LCD maxes out at 1680x1050, and it's probably not fast enough for high-twitch gaming; but then, I bought it for its color accuracy and shadow detail, for image editing. OTOH, while I don't play shooters often (I still have not finished the original Half-Life), when I do play, I prefer an exploration style of play as opposed to zoom and shoot, so the more detailed and realistic the environment, the better I like it. This has its disadvantages:  I never did finish the second Crusader game because I got stuck on a timed level.      
Of course, I also usually can't beat the end bosses without some sort of perma-armor cheat.   

When you ask, "what is the purpose of these new boards" (especially the $500+ ones), the obvious answer would seem to be "cash flow". AMD in particular has been hurting, so milking the early-adopters for 500 bills every six months is one way to help the revenue flow.

FWIW, our personal experience with TS2 is that the game runs more smoothly, with better image quality and more stuff (objects, sims) on a lot with the newer HD 38xx and 48xx boards we have now, than with the X800 boards they replaced—although in fairness, the upgrade in graphics boards was accompanied by new motherboards and Core 2 Duo CPUs (and 4 GB RAM).

Out of curiosity, I have looked at the Web site for Crysis. Despite the advanced graphics, the game itself looks rather stupid. Also, it seems weird to me that the weapons shown in the trailers and walk-through appear to be pretty much the same as in Duke Nukem 3D (1996!). You'd think they could come up with something more interesting than a shotgun.

[J. M. Pescado]

I'm not in disagreement with you here. Anyway, don't serious gamers turn down the graphics quality to ensure maximum speed??

Yes, any serious gamer is going to dispense with all the unnecessary frills that actually impede gameplay. It's kind of hard to shoot your enemies when AA has rendered them into a fuzzy blur indistinguishable from the environment and you can't see anything at all because of all the bloom.

Maybe the tech-geek guys are playing with maxed-out graphics on HDTVs, using the HDMI output on these boards? Just wondering, since I don't know if an HDTV could support those kinds of resolutions or have a fast enough response time.

Pretty sure the entire point of such benchmark attempts is purely masturbatory, and there probably isn't even an actual monitor receiving the output.

My relatively low-cost wide-screen LCD maxes out at 1680x1050, and it's probably not fast enough for high-twitch gaming; but then, I bought it for its color accuracy and shadow detail, for image editing. OTOH, while I don't play shooters often (I still have not finished the original Half-Life), when I do play, I prefer an exploration style of play as opposed to zoom and shoot, so the more detailed and realistic the environment, the better I like it. This has its disadvantages:  I never did finish the second Crusader game because I got stuck on a timed level.      
Of course, I also usually can't beat the end bosses without some sort of perma-armor cheat.   

Zombies are not noted for the swift reflexes, no.

Out of curiosity, I have looked at the Web site for Crysis. Despite the advanced graphics, the game itself looks rather stupid. Also, it seems weird to me that the weapons shown in the trailers and walk-through appear to be pretty much the same as in Duke Nukem 3D (1996!). You'd think they could come up with something more interesting than a shotgun.

It is stupid. I like that the all-powerful endboss can be defeated by throwing a barrel at him, though.