Graphic Cards - Which One???

B

bluey43

1
I want to buy a new graphics card but i am not to sure which one to get. I know you can spend up to $500 or $ 600 even more on cards which i can't afford.

I currently have an old Nvidia Geforce 2 with 64mb. I have a AMD 2.2 with 768 ram memory running XP.

Can anyone suggest something more powerful but without blowing the budget.

Thanks.
 
Lister

Lister

1
what sort of budget you have ?

im in uk but you can still get ati 9800 pros for about £100 to £150 sterling which is a good deal since they used to be £300
 
L

LTR12101B

1
Remember the "kiss of death", in Nvidia based cards, it's MX or XT, while in ATI it's SE (and XT means the TOP of the model range).

Some exceptions, in Nvidia, by the time you get to the FX5900/5950, the XT models are still good cards.
The ATI Radeon 9800SE is an adequate card, but only about equal to a 9600 or maybe 9600Pro.

You should be able to install an AGP 8x card, even if your system only runs 4x - I'm guessing from the CPU spec that it'll be a 4x AGP capable motherboard.

If Nvidia (Geforce 2) works for you, then that may be one reason to stick to the Nvidia range.

It sounds like you'll be heading for a midrange card, ATI Radeon 9600 (preferably PRO or XT), or an Nvidia - some recent new models, but they seem to be low ones.

ATI have also brought out a budget Directx9 card, the Radeon 9550 - if you want DX9 hardware at minimum expense (but also minimum performance) - well, like Nvidia's FX5200 and FX5600XT - it may be just too slow for DX9 gaming.

Any particular software you're aiming to run ... if it's Doom3, you'll need a GOOD midrange at the very least!
 
S

scarecrow

1
ATI makes great cards, but I always opt for Nvidia, as the ATI support for my favorite OS is s....y at best (replace dots with your favorite letters). Actually I could also use Matrox, but IMHO their price is a ripoff for what they offer, EVEN if their 2-D display quality is ages better than any Nvidia or ATI card.
But if you intend to use XP, Radeon 9550 is humiliatingly cheap (less than 100 bucks), and very good for almost all demanding games.
 
B

bluey43

1
I have been told that i should look for the memory on the card eg 256mb or 512mb. Is this important and is there much difference b/w the two. Obviously there is, but is it noticeable to justify the extra cost on the card.

I am looking to run mostly sport games eg GP4, the latest ea sports etc.
 
L

LTR12101B

1
512Mb ??? - do they make them with that - surely only the top of the range models.

The general trend is for the memory to get bigger as you go along - I think you could say that 128Mb is probably "standard" now, with some 256Mb models and some budget 64Mb ones - and 32Mb characteristic of previous generation cards.

I doubt the gain from 128-256Mb is as large as the gain from stepping up by a speed or model.
 
VIPER_1069

VIPER_1069

1
512 meg cards comming real soon but not pocket money prices im afraid :(

i have a mate i spoke to in my puter store today and he said there are some ati 512 meg cards just around the corner :)
 
dx

dx

1
bluey43 said:
I have been told that i should look for the memory on the card eg 256mb or 512mb.
Click to expand...
Sorry to tell you... the 256mb and soon to be released 512mb cards (October) are not going to be in your price range. Very few games need them right now (a year from now that will be a different story ;) ). Doom 3 and Far Cry are current exceptions and run great on the 256mb card. ;)
 
L

LTR12101B

1
One correction - if there's a 256Mb at a reasonable price, it'll probably be a really junk chipset (yeah, I know, I just got a GF4 MX440, the kind of "junk" that can be found as a 256MB, but the 128MB for 10 quid is 60% faster than what I had before).

I'd be wary of going as low as 64Mb, but 128 Mb on a better chipset would blow away 256Mb on a really bottom end chipset.

More important than 64/128/256 (we'll ignore 512Mb for now), is the DirectX hardware level of the chipset.

Nvidia:
TNT/TNT2 (don't laugh, you can still buy them) = DX6 - these days, gaming satisfaction =NIL
GeForce, 2, 2MX, 4 MX = DX7 - The hardware T&L engine is good - and hardware T&L is the bare minimum for a large number of games
Geforce 3 - The first DX8 card, and far superior to a 4 MX
Geforce 4 (all non-MX versions) - DX8 (and at one time, the major gaming powerbase)
Geforce FX - DX9, but the lower models can be too slow for it to be useful.

ATI Radeon:
7500 - DX7
8500 - DX8, and a one-time great that can be found cheap - the LE version is slower clocked, but doesn't lose much.
9000-9200 - still only DX8, and no real advance on the 8500 (apparently, the 9100 IS an 8500)
9500 and up - DX9 - the 9550 is a budget DX9 that may share the same "too slow to be useful" problem of the Geforce FX5200
 
B

bluey43

1
From what i have read, (which i am so very appreciative of) and heard i am am learning towards an ati card, but is there much support around for the cards, eg update drivers etc.

I see nvidia are always releasing updated versions for their graphics cards.
 
L

Leiw

New member
roadworker said:
Geforce FX5900 XT is a great card for less than 200$ now......can handle Doom3 and FarCry very well :D
Click to expand...
you can even patch the bios to make it a 5950 Ultra
 
malcontent

malcontent

1
bluey43, I was in the same position, using a Geforce2. First thing you will notice is that any card is faster, expecially considering that you should not play Doom3 without a DX9 compatible card.

I paid about £50 GBP for an FX5200 and am starting to regret it. Doom3 plays ok on it but I want extra detail. obviously you should go with the base card you can find (as long as the price is right, spending about £300 on a graphics card cab NOt be justified in my book).
 
PC-GUY

PC-GUY

1
malcontent said:
you should not play Doom3 without a DX9 compatible card.

I paid about £50 GBP for an FX5200 and am starting to regret it. Doom3 plays ok on it but I want extra detail.
Click to expand...
I don't agree I play it with G4Ti4200-VTD8X which is GeForce4 and I don't have any complaints. It's only a DX8 card.
 
S

scarecrow

1
malcontent said:
I paid about £50 GBP for an FX5200 and am starting to regret it.
Click to expand...
IMHO FX 5200 is a fine basic video chip, but your fifty pounds are a bit too much. I paid very recently just 45 euros for a Leadtek GF FX 5200/128M RAM, and it does a fine job, as long as you don't play cutting edge games. It's also great as an OpenGL video accelerator under Linux, while the ATI cards are badly let down there due to their utterly crappy drivers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top