Dawgster
31st July 2004, 19:41
INDEX : Graphics chip
DirectX/OpenGL
Memory
AGP
PCIe
ATI
MATROX
NVIDIA
S3
XGI
I often hear people in-game or on the forums asking which graphics card they should buy. These threads/conversations then often degenerate into flamewars between ATI and nvidia fanboys/fangirls. So I decided to write this little piece to help those who have a real life and who thus cannot spend the whole time reading reviews.
At any time there are about a dozen different cards on the market, and choosing between them can be a daunting task. So let's start by discussing what the graphics chip actually does : it calculates the geometry and the lighting in the program you are running, and then renders this into the final image which it then displays on screen.
So there are basically two parts to a graphics chip, the geometry engine (also called "vertex shader"), and the raster engine ("render engine", "pixel shader". "pixel" stands for "picture element"). Older chips contained only a raster engine , letting the CPU handle the geometry (which was called "t&l", or "transform and lighting", before marketing people created the whole "shader" buzzword). All currently available graphics chips have both geo and raster engines.
There are at present 5 major manufacturers of graphics chips in the world, and these companies then sell the chips to the manufacturers of the actual graphics cards. The cards contain the chip, memory modules (for storing information about the next frame to be rendered (frame buffer), textures (texture buffer), and z-buffer (which contains info on the depth of a scene ; x and y data are for width and height) ), and if needed, TV encoders or video inputs (so you can record video to your PC from say a camcorder or a VCR). The chips themselves contain the RAMDACs (Random Access Memory Digital to Analog Converter), which turn the image created by the chip into something your monitor can understand.
The memory can be connected to the chip through a 64-bit, 128-bit, or 256-bit data path. This memory is usally of the DDR variety, which means that it sends two pieces of data per clock cycle rather than one. Given that 8 bits equals one byte, you can calculate that a 200MHz DDR memory module (effective data transfer rate is 400MHz) would give the graphics chip a memory bandwidth of 3.2 gigabytes per second on a 64-bit bus, 6.4GB/s on a 128-bit bus, and 12.8GB/sec on a 256-bitter. The more bandwidth, the better, of course; as it makes it easier (faster) for the chip to access the data it needs to work with.
Then of course, there are the special effects that the chip can calculate. In the old days when man had yet to discover fire (circa 1994), games had to be programmed differently for each specific graphics chip. In the old issues of PCGamer, graphics cards are actually advertised with games compatibility rather than speed or price. then came the introduction of OpenGL and a while later, DirectX. These programs basically act as "reference books", for lack of a better term. Basically , they define which effects you can use as a programmer, and how these effects are implemented. As a game developer you then program for OpenGL (quake runs on openGL), or directX (Unreal). Each new version of these "reference books contains a larger vocabulary than the preceding one, giving developers ever more stuff to play with. All the graphics chip companies have to do is build a chip that accelerates graphics according to OpenGL or DirectX standards, so if you have a DirectX compatible graphics chip then that will play EVERY DirectX game out there.
A DirectX 7 chip, like the original radeon card is compatible with those directX7 effects only; you can run DX8 games on the card, but they will render without the eyecandy that a DX8 card (like the geforce3) would give you. Morrowind is a good example for this: with hardware DX8 support you get realistic-looking water, without it you get, uh, grey soup. The original radeon simply does not understand the DX8 vocabulary, only the DX7 it was designed for. Think of it like ordering pizza with extra pepperoni: The Radeon knows what pizza is (DX7), but you need a newer card to understand the pepperoni (DX8). Hope I made this clear enough.
There is also the question of how much memory your card should have: 128MB or 256MB? There are presently few games that fill out 128MB at resolutions like 1024x768, so more RAM does not necessarily mean better performance. However, a card with more RAM will be more future-proof. if given the choice between a geforce FX 5600 256Mb and a geforce FX 5600ULTRA 128MB, the ultra will always be faster because its processor runs higher clock-speeds (and its RAM also). So more RAM can be a good thing, but it will not make a slow chip perform better. It simply gives the chip access to more stuff directly on the card instead of storing it in slower main memory.
AGP: All data is transferrred into the graphics card through the AGP bus. The faster the bus, the more data can be transferred in a given amount of time. Today, motherboards and graphics cards usually support the AGP4x or AGP8x standards. Current games however do not fully utilise the bandwidth of AGP4x, much less 8x, so there is no appreciable performance difference between the two modes on identical graphics cards. Of course, on a card with less on board memory (like 64MB), the faster AGP rate makes transferring textures from main memory to graphics memory that much faster. Once again, this is not necessary in 128 or 256MB cards, as these have enough onboard RAM as to not be affected very much by the AGP speed.
PCIe: PCI express (not to be confused with PCI-X) is the replacement for the AGP/PCI slots we have now on our motherboards. This is fairly new technology that just became available few while ago. The slots for graphics cards are referred to as 16x slots, while slots for other cards (like soundcards) are wired up on fewer strands (2x or 4x).
Now let's take a look at the actual graphics chips & cards currently available for sale:
ATI : 9000/9100/9200 - based on the old 8500 core. Feature compatible with DX8 (most recent version of DX is version 9). Slow. Available with 128-bit and even slower 64-bit memory busses. Too slow to play most current games at acceptable framerates.
9550 - basically a 9600 chip , but at much lower clockspeeds (250MHz core/200MHz RAM, effective 400MHz DDR). Very slow and not really suited to any gamer, although if you don't play games much and need a decent card for a media center it'll do. There are both 128-bit and 64-bit memory bus versions out there, with the 64-bitter naturally being even slower .
9600 - compatible with DX9, essentially half a radeon 9800, with 4 rendering pipes instead of 8, 2 vertex shaders instead of 4. exists in 64-bit and 128-bit versions. SE is slowest version (64-bit). Non-PRO is also not the fastest card out there, being handicapped by slow (but cheap) memory. PRO and XT are fast enough for most current games, and are a pretty decent value. Have reputation for overclocking very well.
9800 - ATi's fastest card. 8 pipes, quad shaders, 256-bit RAM. Non-PRO, PRO and XT are all very fast. SE has 4 pipes deactivated and comes in 128 and 256-bit versions. SE has lower clockspeed than 9600PRo, so a 128-bit 9800SE is actually slower ovrall than a 9600PRO, but is more expensive.
X600 - the replacement for the 9600, but according to ATI it will only be available in a PCIe version. the chip itself is really just a 9600, but with an on-die PCIe controller. There will be several different versions (from slowest to fastest: SE, regular, PRO, and XT). The XT has a 500MHz core clock (same as the 9600XT), but it uses faster memory than the 9600. If you have a 9600 now and need to buy a PCIe card, the X600 is not really much of an upgrade. Better to save your money and get something a bit more robust.
X800 - ATI's replacement for the 9800 series. It is based off the same basic technology as the 9800, but has 16 rendering pipes instead of 8, and 6 vertex shaders instead of 4. Clockspeeds vary from version to version, but all are faster than any 9800 series card. The lower-end versions have only 12 pixel pipes activated, and there is talk of an 8-pipe version for OEM customers (large computer companies like dell). The 8-piper should still be somewhat faster than a radeon 9800PRO (due to higher clockspeeds), but if you have a 9800XT now an 8-pipe X800 is not much (if any) of an improvement. The 12-pipe PRO version is a lot faster than the old 9800XT though, and the 16-pipe XT and XT platinum edition are sometimes as much as twice as fast as the leaders of the last generation.
MATROX : Parhelia and P650/750 chips. Parhelia is the top of the line matrox card but offers only as much speed as the old radeon 9200 . P650/750 are half a full parhelia, half as many rendering pipes and 128-bit RAM. Even slower, naturally. These are quuite expensive though because they are aimed at the workstation market where image quality is more important than speed. 750 and parhelia have triple monitor support which works in planetside and quake-based games (as well as MS flightsimulator), albeit slowly. Matrox claims partial DX9 compatibility for these cards, but matrox' drivers only work in pure DX8 mode.
NVIDIA : 5200/Ultra - Slowest version of nvidia's DX9 family. Performance comparable to ATI's 9000/9100/9200, but fully DX9 compatible and thus a better choice. Non-ultra is VERY slow. Exists in 128-bit and even slower 64-bit versions, usually referred to as "SE" models .
5500 - This is a slower clocked version of the 5600. It's pretty slow, especially in its 64-bit memory version. Best to avoid this.
5600/Ultra - Nvidia's midrange card, beaten solidly by ATI's offerings. No longer being made, but still available at a lot of places. Avoid.
5700/Ultra - The replacement for the underperforming 5600. Based off a modified 5900 core rather than the weaker 5800. Is about even with ATI's 9600 series in most benchmarks. Once again, beware of the 64-bit SE models.
5900/Ultra - Nvidia's top of the line . Ultra now called "5950" after a minor speed boost. About equal performance in most games to ATI's 9800 series, but ATI retains a lead in next generation shader performance. Still, not exactly a bad choice.
5900XT - Unlike ATI, which calls its fastest cards "XT", Nvidia calls slower versions "XT". The 5900XT uses the same core as the regular 5900, but at 390MHz rather than 400. Memory drops from 850MHz DDR to 700. Sells for only a few dollars more than 5700ultra and 9600XT, but beats both into a bloody pulp. The best 200 dollar card currently available, by far - and it even overclocks very well. The spiritual successor to the venerable Ti4200, if you will.
6800 - The replacement for the 5900/5950 series. No idea why they call it geforce6 though - if you count all major architectures in the GF line (NV10/geforce1, NV20/geforce3, NV30/geforceFX, and NV40/geforce 6800) the 6800 is the fourth one; and if you count architectures and their revisions (NV10, NV15/geforce2, NV20, NV25/geforce4, NV30, NV35/FX5700 and 5900, NV40) you end up with the 6800 being number 7. Perhaps NV wanted to avoid the 7000's as ATI used to sell a 7000 line a while ago. Whatever the case may be, the 6800 is a major step forward for NV after the debacle that was NV30/35. Like its ATI counterpart, the 6800 is available in 12 and 16 pipeline versions (regular 6800 has 12 pipes, the GT, ultra, and ultra extreme have 16), and there is an 8-pipe version for the dells of this world. In terms of pure performance, the ATI cards are generally somewhat faster than the NV cards, although the margin is very small. In certain tests the NVcards beat the ATIs by some margin, but all in all it's too close to call. Nvidia's big selling point here is the full support of the 3.0 shadermodel (geforce 5900 and ATI 9800/X800 use shader 2.0), which some developers incorporate into their games. SM3.0 is a smaller step up from 2.0 than 2.0 was from 1.x, but an advantage IS an advantage, no matter how small, and NV will exploit that by paying developers (through their "the way it's meant to be played" program) to incorporate SM3.0 support into their games, and then advertising their cards as the only ones being "fully" compatible with those games. I'd buy a 6800 for this reason, but if you have an NV allergy, by all means, get an ATI. Both the X800 and the 6800 are a HUGE step forward in terms of performance, neither one will disappoint you.
S3 : S8/NITRO - The S8 is the first new chip to be released by S3 since their acquisition by VIA. Fully DX9 compatible, the chip performs on about the same level as a radeon 9600PRO. OpenGL drivers are slow though and there seem to be display errors in openGL as well. Nitro is clocked slightly faster. Pointless to buy because proven cards with solid drivers (9600PRO, 5700 series) are available for similar money; nonetheless , when you consider that this is their first new architecture in five years (!), it's not so bad. Shows that they, as a company, have potential. Maybe their next chip will give ATI/nvidia a good scare.
S4/NITRO - This is the smaller version of the S8 chip, with only half as many rendering pipes. Performance is between the radeon 9200 and the radeon 9600 non-PRO and the geforce 5600 non-ULTRA. Not bad for the price, but if you have to buy something in that category I'd recommend that you go with a more proven solution (like the aforementioned ATI/NV chips), as S3's drivers are not quite there yet.
XGI : XGI is partially owned by SiS. They currently make three chips, all of which suck. I will only describe the top version of their card, I'm tired of typing and really, they suck.
Volari V8 DUO - This has TWO of XGI's volari V8 chips on it, for a total of 16 rendering pipes. fully DX9 compatible. It still only performs as well as a radeon 9600PRO or an nvidia 5700ultra, which does not prevent XGI from suggesting a $400 MSRP. image quality is also less than perfect, and several websites have said that XGI use lower quality filtering in their drivers to help performance. Other versions of the volari include the V8 (single chip), V5 (4 pipes), and the V3, which is based on the old (and equally atrocious) trident XP5 chip and is only DX8 compatible. XGI bought trident some time ago, only god knows why.
So there you have it. I hope this helps some of you make better buying decisions, and I will update this every once in a while when new chips are released.
DirectX/OpenGL
Memory
AGP
PCIe
ATI
MATROX
NVIDIA
S3
XGI
I often hear people in-game or on the forums asking which graphics card they should buy. These threads/conversations then often degenerate into flamewars between ATI and nvidia fanboys/fangirls. So I decided to write this little piece to help those who have a real life and who thus cannot spend the whole time reading reviews.
At any time there are about a dozen different cards on the market, and choosing between them can be a daunting task. So let's start by discussing what the graphics chip actually does : it calculates the geometry and the lighting in the program you are running, and then renders this into the final image which it then displays on screen.
So there are basically two parts to a graphics chip, the geometry engine (also called "vertex shader"), and the raster engine ("render engine", "pixel shader". "pixel" stands for "picture element"). Older chips contained only a raster engine , letting the CPU handle the geometry (which was called "t&l", or "transform and lighting", before marketing people created the whole "shader" buzzword). All currently available graphics chips have both geo and raster engines.
There are at present 5 major manufacturers of graphics chips in the world, and these companies then sell the chips to the manufacturers of the actual graphics cards. The cards contain the chip, memory modules (for storing information about the next frame to be rendered (frame buffer), textures (texture buffer), and z-buffer (which contains info on the depth of a scene ; x and y data are for width and height) ), and if needed, TV encoders or video inputs (so you can record video to your PC from say a camcorder or a VCR). The chips themselves contain the RAMDACs (Random Access Memory Digital to Analog Converter), which turn the image created by the chip into something your monitor can understand.
The memory can be connected to the chip through a 64-bit, 128-bit, or 256-bit data path. This memory is usally of the DDR variety, which means that it sends two pieces of data per clock cycle rather than one. Given that 8 bits equals one byte, you can calculate that a 200MHz DDR memory module (effective data transfer rate is 400MHz) would give the graphics chip a memory bandwidth of 3.2 gigabytes per second on a 64-bit bus, 6.4GB/s on a 128-bit bus, and 12.8GB/sec on a 256-bitter. The more bandwidth, the better, of course; as it makes it easier (faster) for the chip to access the data it needs to work with.
Then of course, there are the special effects that the chip can calculate. In the old days when man had yet to discover fire (circa 1994), games had to be programmed differently for each specific graphics chip. In the old issues of PCGamer, graphics cards are actually advertised with games compatibility rather than speed or price. then came the introduction of OpenGL and a while later, DirectX. These programs basically act as "reference books", for lack of a better term. Basically , they define which effects you can use as a programmer, and how these effects are implemented. As a game developer you then program for OpenGL (quake runs on openGL), or directX (Unreal). Each new version of these "reference books contains a larger vocabulary than the preceding one, giving developers ever more stuff to play with. All the graphics chip companies have to do is build a chip that accelerates graphics according to OpenGL or DirectX standards, so if you have a DirectX compatible graphics chip then that will play EVERY DirectX game out there.
A DirectX 7 chip, like the original radeon card is compatible with those directX7 effects only; you can run DX8 games on the card, but they will render without the eyecandy that a DX8 card (like the geforce3) would give you. Morrowind is a good example for this: with hardware DX8 support you get realistic-looking water, without it you get, uh, grey soup. The original radeon simply does not understand the DX8 vocabulary, only the DX7 it was designed for. Think of it like ordering pizza with extra pepperoni: The Radeon knows what pizza is (DX7), but you need a newer card to understand the pepperoni (DX8). Hope I made this clear enough.
There is also the question of how much memory your card should have: 128MB or 256MB? There are presently few games that fill out 128MB at resolutions like 1024x768, so more RAM does not necessarily mean better performance. However, a card with more RAM will be more future-proof. if given the choice between a geforce FX 5600 256Mb and a geforce FX 5600ULTRA 128MB, the ultra will always be faster because its processor runs higher clock-speeds (and its RAM also). So more RAM can be a good thing, but it will not make a slow chip perform better. It simply gives the chip access to more stuff directly on the card instead of storing it in slower main memory.
AGP: All data is transferrred into the graphics card through the AGP bus. The faster the bus, the more data can be transferred in a given amount of time. Today, motherboards and graphics cards usually support the AGP4x or AGP8x standards. Current games however do not fully utilise the bandwidth of AGP4x, much less 8x, so there is no appreciable performance difference between the two modes on identical graphics cards. Of course, on a card with less on board memory (like 64MB), the faster AGP rate makes transferring textures from main memory to graphics memory that much faster. Once again, this is not necessary in 128 or 256MB cards, as these have enough onboard RAM as to not be affected very much by the AGP speed.
PCIe: PCI express (not to be confused with PCI-X) is the replacement for the AGP/PCI slots we have now on our motherboards. This is fairly new technology that just became available few while ago. The slots for graphics cards are referred to as 16x slots, while slots for other cards (like soundcards) are wired up on fewer strands (2x or 4x).
Now let's take a look at the actual graphics chips & cards currently available for sale:
ATI : 9000/9100/9200 - based on the old 8500 core. Feature compatible with DX8 (most recent version of DX is version 9). Slow. Available with 128-bit and even slower 64-bit memory busses. Too slow to play most current games at acceptable framerates.
9550 - basically a 9600 chip , but at much lower clockspeeds (250MHz core/200MHz RAM, effective 400MHz DDR). Very slow and not really suited to any gamer, although if you don't play games much and need a decent card for a media center it'll do. There are both 128-bit and 64-bit memory bus versions out there, with the 64-bitter naturally being even slower .
9600 - compatible with DX9, essentially half a radeon 9800, with 4 rendering pipes instead of 8, 2 vertex shaders instead of 4. exists in 64-bit and 128-bit versions. SE is slowest version (64-bit). Non-PRO is also not the fastest card out there, being handicapped by slow (but cheap) memory. PRO and XT are fast enough for most current games, and are a pretty decent value. Have reputation for overclocking very well.
9800 - ATi's fastest card. 8 pipes, quad shaders, 256-bit RAM. Non-PRO, PRO and XT are all very fast. SE has 4 pipes deactivated and comes in 128 and 256-bit versions. SE has lower clockspeed than 9600PRo, so a 128-bit 9800SE is actually slower ovrall than a 9600PRO, but is more expensive.
X600 - the replacement for the 9600, but according to ATI it will only be available in a PCIe version. the chip itself is really just a 9600, but with an on-die PCIe controller. There will be several different versions (from slowest to fastest: SE, regular, PRO, and XT). The XT has a 500MHz core clock (same as the 9600XT), but it uses faster memory than the 9600. If you have a 9600 now and need to buy a PCIe card, the X600 is not really much of an upgrade. Better to save your money and get something a bit more robust.
X800 - ATI's replacement for the 9800 series. It is based off the same basic technology as the 9800, but has 16 rendering pipes instead of 8, and 6 vertex shaders instead of 4. Clockspeeds vary from version to version, but all are faster than any 9800 series card. The lower-end versions have only 12 pixel pipes activated, and there is talk of an 8-pipe version for OEM customers (large computer companies like dell). The 8-piper should still be somewhat faster than a radeon 9800PRO (due to higher clockspeeds), but if you have a 9800XT now an 8-pipe X800 is not much (if any) of an improvement. The 12-pipe PRO version is a lot faster than the old 9800XT though, and the 16-pipe XT and XT platinum edition are sometimes as much as twice as fast as the leaders of the last generation.
MATROX : Parhelia and P650/750 chips. Parhelia is the top of the line matrox card but offers only as much speed as the old radeon 9200 . P650/750 are half a full parhelia, half as many rendering pipes and 128-bit RAM. Even slower, naturally. These are quuite expensive though because they are aimed at the workstation market where image quality is more important than speed. 750 and parhelia have triple monitor support which works in planetside and quake-based games (as well as MS flightsimulator), albeit slowly. Matrox claims partial DX9 compatibility for these cards, but matrox' drivers only work in pure DX8 mode.
NVIDIA : 5200/Ultra - Slowest version of nvidia's DX9 family. Performance comparable to ATI's 9000/9100/9200, but fully DX9 compatible and thus a better choice. Non-ultra is VERY slow. Exists in 128-bit and even slower 64-bit versions, usually referred to as "SE" models .
5500 - This is a slower clocked version of the 5600. It's pretty slow, especially in its 64-bit memory version. Best to avoid this.
5600/Ultra - Nvidia's midrange card, beaten solidly by ATI's offerings. No longer being made, but still available at a lot of places. Avoid.
5700/Ultra - The replacement for the underperforming 5600. Based off a modified 5900 core rather than the weaker 5800. Is about even with ATI's 9600 series in most benchmarks. Once again, beware of the 64-bit SE models.
5900/Ultra - Nvidia's top of the line . Ultra now called "5950" after a minor speed boost. About equal performance in most games to ATI's 9800 series, but ATI retains a lead in next generation shader performance. Still, not exactly a bad choice.
5900XT - Unlike ATI, which calls its fastest cards "XT", Nvidia calls slower versions "XT". The 5900XT uses the same core as the regular 5900, but at 390MHz rather than 400. Memory drops from 850MHz DDR to 700. Sells for only a few dollars more than 5700ultra and 9600XT, but beats both into a bloody pulp. The best 200 dollar card currently available, by far - and it even overclocks very well. The spiritual successor to the venerable Ti4200, if you will.
6800 - The replacement for the 5900/5950 series. No idea why they call it geforce6 though - if you count all major architectures in the GF line (NV10/geforce1, NV20/geforce3, NV30/geforceFX, and NV40/geforce 6800) the 6800 is the fourth one; and if you count architectures and their revisions (NV10, NV15/geforce2, NV20, NV25/geforce4, NV30, NV35/FX5700 and 5900, NV40) you end up with the 6800 being number 7. Perhaps NV wanted to avoid the 7000's as ATI used to sell a 7000 line a while ago. Whatever the case may be, the 6800 is a major step forward for NV after the debacle that was NV30/35. Like its ATI counterpart, the 6800 is available in 12 and 16 pipeline versions (regular 6800 has 12 pipes, the GT, ultra, and ultra extreme have 16), and there is an 8-pipe version for the dells of this world. In terms of pure performance, the ATI cards are generally somewhat faster than the NV cards, although the margin is very small. In certain tests the NVcards beat the ATIs by some margin, but all in all it's too close to call. Nvidia's big selling point here is the full support of the 3.0 shadermodel (geforce 5900 and ATI 9800/X800 use shader 2.0), which some developers incorporate into their games. SM3.0 is a smaller step up from 2.0 than 2.0 was from 1.x, but an advantage IS an advantage, no matter how small, and NV will exploit that by paying developers (through their "the way it's meant to be played" program) to incorporate SM3.0 support into their games, and then advertising their cards as the only ones being "fully" compatible with those games. I'd buy a 6800 for this reason, but if you have an NV allergy, by all means, get an ATI. Both the X800 and the 6800 are a HUGE step forward in terms of performance, neither one will disappoint you.
S3 : S8/NITRO - The S8 is the first new chip to be released by S3 since their acquisition by VIA. Fully DX9 compatible, the chip performs on about the same level as a radeon 9600PRO. OpenGL drivers are slow though and there seem to be display errors in openGL as well. Nitro is clocked slightly faster. Pointless to buy because proven cards with solid drivers (9600PRO, 5700 series) are available for similar money; nonetheless , when you consider that this is their first new architecture in five years (!), it's not so bad. Shows that they, as a company, have potential. Maybe their next chip will give ATI/nvidia a good scare.
S4/NITRO - This is the smaller version of the S8 chip, with only half as many rendering pipes. Performance is between the radeon 9200 and the radeon 9600 non-PRO and the geforce 5600 non-ULTRA. Not bad for the price, but if you have to buy something in that category I'd recommend that you go with a more proven solution (like the aforementioned ATI/NV chips), as S3's drivers are not quite there yet.
XGI : XGI is partially owned by SiS. They currently make three chips, all of which suck. I will only describe the top version of their card, I'm tired of typing and really, they suck.
Volari V8 DUO - This has TWO of XGI's volari V8 chips on it, for a total of 16 rendering pipes. fully DX9 compatible. It still only performs as well as a radeon 9600PRO or an nvidia 5700ultra, which does not prevent XGI from suggesting a $400 MSRP. image quality is also less than perfect, and several websites have said that XGI use lower quality filtering in their drivers to help performance. Other versions of the volari include the V8 (single chip), V5 (4 pipes), and the V3, which is based on the old (and equally atrocious) trident XP5 chip and is only DX8 compatible. XGI bought trident some time ago, only god knows why.
So there you have it. I hope this helps some of you make better buying decisions, and I will update this every once in a while when new chips are released.