I never had troubles of that sort using ATI/AMD GPU's.
So far I've been using these in my (former) main rigs:
Radeon 9600 256MB made by Sapphire, read a lot of people had trouble with this card, but I never experienced them. Had this one running in my XP 3200+ machine with XP for years
HD4670 1GB, this card was the upgrade for the Radeon 9600 in above system. No problems either though.
HD5670 1GB, using this one in my main rig with Windows 7. Runs everything I throw at it.

So I can't say I had any troubles with these cards.
Perhaps the HD3450 wasn't meant to be run in w2k?
Perhaps the HD5450 wasn't meant to run with an adapter?
Perhaps the HD6450 simply is too new for Windows XP?

The last one is a lame excuse though (from the side of AMD, not you Gerwin 😉 ), personally I think this should be able to run. Unless the card is officially not supported by XP anymore.

Sorry I can't be of any more help

Nay, it's just famous ATi catalyst programmers. The chances for the good drivers are only if AMD shoot all of them and give the work to the completely new hands...

As the example - Radeon X850 PE Agp. From 7.12 to 10.2 - completely wrong mipmapping.

I agree with Tetrium about the HD3450 and HD5450 not being used correctly. I really doubt you'd get NVidia cards working well under such conditions either. Now the HD6450, could be that it doesn't have good drivers for XP. Not an excuse, but that card is pretty new and XP is now 2 generations old.

And why are you wasting the full potential of a Sandy Bridge set-up by using it with XP? UGH! Install Win 7 and you can live happily ever after.

Tetrium wrote:

I never had troubles of that sort using ATI/AMD GPU's. So far I've been using these in my (former) main rigs: Radeon 9600 256MB […]
Show full quote

I never had troubles of that sort using ATI/AMD GPU's.
So far I've been using these in my (former) main rigs:
Radeon 9600 256MB made by Sapphire, read a lot of people had trouble with this card, but I never experienced them. Had this one running in my XP 3200+ machine with XP for years
HD4670 1GB, this card was the upgrade for the Radeon 9600 in above system. No problems either though.
HD5670 1GB, using this one in my main rig with Windows 7. Runs everything I throw at it.

Does this also include older games?
I had a 9600 for one day, but VESA compatibility mattered to me then, and it was horrible on the 9600.

Tetrium wrote:

So I can't say I had any troubles with these cards. Perhaps the HD3450 wasn't meant to be run in w2k? Perhaps the HD5450 wasn't […]
Show full quote

So I can't say I had any troubles with these cards.
Perhaps the HD3450 wasn't meant to be run in w2k?
Perhaps the HD5450 wasn't meant to run with an adapter?
Perhaps the HD6450 simply is too new for Windows XP?

The last one is a lame excuse though (from the side of AMD, not you Gerwin 😉 ), personally I think this should be able to run. Unless the card is officially not supported by XP anymore.

I know the first two combinations were partly on my own risk, but very feasable. Nvidia has Geforce 210's and ION's on a PCI-E 1x interface though. Oh wait.. there is also this one: "HIS HD 5450 Silence 1GB PCIe x1 Eyefinity Video Card".
Radeon '09 and '10 series drivers install fine on W2K with a small inf modification, there was this asian website with modified drivers.

Gamecollector wrote:

Nay, it's just famous ATi catalyst programmers. The chances for the good drivers are only if AMD shoot all of them and give the work to the completely new hands...

I agree with you, these problems are tied to the ATI/AMD hardware or software. Probably the driver. When will them programmers be shot and replaced then? 😉
Intel GMA/HD graphics never have issues like this. They are slow and lack features, but never mess up or lock up in such ugly fashion.

olemogamer wrote:

And why are you wasting the full potential of a Sandy Bridge set-up by using it with XP? UGH! Install Win 7 and you can live happily ever after.

That is another discussion, I considered it but all the software I care for is XP-era or older. Everything is near full potential and reliable, except memory size is max 4GB (plenty for now), and the darn ATI/AMD issues.

gerwin wrote:

Tetrium wrote:

I never had troubles of that sort using ATI/AMD GPU's. So far I've been using these in my (former) main rigs: Radeon 9600 256MB […]
Show full quote

I never had troubles of that sort using ATI/AMD GPU's.
So far I've been using these in my (former) main rigs:
Radeon 9600 256MB made by Sapphire, read a lot of people had trouble with this card, but I never experienced them. Had this one running in my XP 3200+ machine with XP for years
HD4670 1GB, this card was the upgrade for the Radeon 9600 in above system. No problems either though.
HD5670 1GB, using this one in my main rig with Windows 7. Runs everything I throw at it.

Does this also include older games?
I had a 9600 for one day, but VESA compatibility mattered to me then, and it was horrible on the 9600.

Don't think I bumped into this, the oldest game I remember having played with that card is AVP2 and it ran fine

In my experience it is just hit and miss with PC hardware. I had an Nvidia Geforce 9600 GT with a very peculiar (but nasty) problem in which centain games just kept crashing on my machine. It was only mysteriously solved after a lot of driver and bios upgrades 2 years later and worked very well ever since. I now have an AMD Radeon HD 6770, it works fine (haven't got it long), but when I stress it the fan starts to make a lot of ratling noise which makes me very sad.

Without going into details, I always recommend buying Intel and Nvidia.

Specific to games, AMD video cards work fine for "mainstream" games, but anything that's a little bit outside the radar can cause issues. For example I used to have a 9600GT in an Athlon II dual core machine and it was really a nice fit. Then I upgraded to a Radeon 5750. This card was fine in the mainstream games, but for example in Dead Space performance was very poor. Older games like thhat horror game series (Something with black blague) also had issues on the AMD card.

I totally understand the thing with XP. I was dual booting for ages, but moved to W7 maybe 2 years ago, it's that good. Haven't found much that wouldn't run.

I would try an Nvidia 7600GT or 8800GT or 9600GT together with older drivers. Both cards should be very cheap and custom cooler easily available (regarding your comment about overheating). The 9600 can be had as a green version with no PCIe slot (slightly lower clocks). There is also a green 9800GT, not sure about the clocks though.

7800GTX might have run warmer, but the 7900GTX was very good. Awesome dual slot cooler and whisper quiet.

The 8800GT in particular (just like the Radeon 4850) are DESIGNED to run hot. The last breed of very fast single slot cards. Everyone thought they overheat, but they are designed to run hot in order to stay single slot.

These days even a 6700 is dual sot. That would have easily been a single slot card if people weren't so worried about temps.

Gaming on Intel graphics is one of the few weaknesses you have with Intel.

The Radeon 6450 was send back to the shop today, Gigabyte support could not explain the screenshot and advised me to return the card. I marked the card a little, so I will know when they decide to send me that bad specimen back.

Mau1wurf1977 wrote:

Without going into details, I always recommend buying Intel and Nvidia.

I see. In case I go for Nvidia next; I have my eye on the Asus ENGT520 Silent.

Mau1wurf1977 wrote:

I totally understand the thing with XP. I was dual booting for ages, but moved to W7 maybe 2 years ago, it's that good. Haven't found much that wouldn't run.

Yeah but everything runs like a charm in XP so there is not a real reason to go to 7 for me. Until I come across something I want and that requires 7, then I will consider it again.

(...I never seem to just USE an OS. But tweak it instead, and learn its ins and outs. The very best way to save my own time is by avoiding buying and installing new software. )

The problem now doesn't rely on the OS, but the video drivers. 99% of the games I have run on W7, but with visual artifacts, unless I use a very old driver from 2007 or something. Even on XP I needed to stop upgrading the drivers since last year for them to work right. I may go to ATI if I move to 7, as nvidia drivers support for anything below DirectX 9 is terrible.

No worries Gerwin!

Hmm the GT520 is really a media centre card, not that recommended for playing games. And it's very new. For XP I would really start off with some second hand cards like the ones I listed. Or even older ones.

Because the thing is for a GT520 there aren't any old drivers, the card is way to new...

I'd really do like a driver timeline (yearly), also add cards and then the games. You kinda need to match the card, driver and game in order to have zero issues.

Splinter cell and the second game only show correct lightning on specific cards and drivers. Apparently it uses some version of lightning from the Xbox version and this is simply broke in current cards.

So on a modern machine I played splinter cell, but on many levels you couldn't see the search lights (shadows)...

I really like ati, i have no idea why. 4 of my machines have ATI gpu's and 2 of then nvidia. My 3 big machienes all have ati cards and i don't have that many issues. i own: Radeon hd 6970, Radeon x1900xtx, radeon 9000pro, radeon 7000 (dosn't work in 3D) and a rage 2. were as a own some oem 256mb nvidia card, a qautro 140m and a rivia tnt 2. I personally don't like the nvidia contol pannel as much as the ati one. (though i know that certain versions were programed with the keyboard upthe the coders ass.

This is a futile argument. Both nVidia and AMD have issues. Period.

eL_PuSHeR wrote:

This is a futile argument. Both nVidia and AMD have issues. Period.

I know that. I wonder what are the ATI issues and if they take too long to get fixed.

Mau1wurf1977 wrote:

I'd really do like a driver timeline (yearly), also add cards and then the games. You kinda need to match the card, driver and game in order to have zero issues.

I agree. Matters less if it's Nvidia or ATi. What matters is trying to match the hardware and drivers with the game for zero issues.

My only cons:
- Shadowmap depth fail on 16 instead of 24
- GPU scaling aspect isn't correctable if your desktop resolution differs in aspect (no 4:3 in 16:9 resolutions)
- An unneccessary hotkey manager

sgt76 wrote:

Mau1wurf1977 wrote:

I'd really do like a driver timeline (yearly), also add cards and then the games. You kinda need to match the card, driver and game in order to have zero issues.

I agree. Matters less if it's Nvidia or ATi. What matters is trying to match the hardware and drivers with the game for zero issues.

Exactly this.

I'm more of an ATI/AMD fanboy (admittedly) but most of my rigs use Nvidia cards and I have to say, I have next to zero issues with them (the only issue I have is one single rig not being able to play one single game, but that could very well be caused by something other then the graphics card).

And yes, I know fanboyism is stupid 😜

filipetolhuizen wrote:

I know that. I wonder what are the ATI issues and if they take too long to get fixed.

Well for one thing, Ati doens't support OpenGl as good as Nvidia does (less fps), don't know if it is a driver thing or that it´s because of different hardware.

Probably a driver thing, because it's reported to get worse under Linux.

Procyon wrote:

Well for one thing, Ati doens't support OpenGl as good as Nvidia does (less fps), don't know if it is a driver thing or that it´s because of different hardware.

Thats not going to be an issue as any old ogl game is going to run at a massive framerate
eg: quake 3 8800gts 1280x1024 999fps