12-10-2003 22:52									#1
	Looking around for a new video card... Enter the AD-FREE zone

My computer is 3 years old now, and it's beginning to have issues with a couple of 3d games. (Battlefield 1942 and Halo) I plan on buying it a new graphics card soon. It has a Geforce 2 MX right now, I think. I'd like to get something that can run Halo and Half Life 2 pretty well, but I don't want to spend a lot of money on a computer that is going to be replaced in a couple of years anyway. This is going to be my money, so I would like to spend as little as possible.

What card would you suggest and how much does it cost?

	12-10-2003 23:03									#2
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Uh...

"I want something that will run well but not go obsolete in two or three years"

How about a time machine?

	12-10-2003 23:09									#3
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

No, I do want my video card to go obselete in exactly two years, so it will coincide with the obselescence (sp?) of my computer.

	13-10-2003 00:34									#4
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

I'm kinda in the same situation. I've got a GeForce 3 TI200, and I was thinking of buying this one

Does anyone have any experience with this one? Is it much better than the one I've got now?

quote: Originally posted by mrmitchell How about a time machine?

I've been thinking about getting one, but I couldn't find one cheap enough

	13-10-2003 01:41									#5
	Got spare money?

Remember that your CPU might also act as a bottleneck in new games. Turn down the resolution and the eye candy in the games you play to see how many frames per second your CPU can handle before you decide what graphics card to buy.

	13-10-2003 01:55									#6
	Got spare money?

For most shooter games, a very good video card is necessary, but only a marginally good CPU is necessary.

A GeForce 4 of some kind would be nice, but how cheap could I get one?

	13-10-2003 02:12									#7
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: For most shooter games, a very good video card is necessary, but only a marginally good CPU is necessary.

A computer should be above all balanced. Nothing is sadder than seeing a GF4 Titanium on a computer with a 1 GHz Athlon and 256 megabytes of SDRAM.

quote: A GeForce 4 of some kind would be nice, but how cheap could I get one?

Stay clear of anything with "MX", as those would be nary an upgrade to your current card (Despite being a "GF4" instead of a GF2). A GeForce 4 Titanium goes for around 170 - 200 euros in Finnish stores, for the States it's probably around or below 150 dollars.

I wouldn't mind seeing your other specs, though. And that GF2 MX isn't hopefully integrated to the motherboard, is it?

ADG:

quote: I'm kinda in the same situation. I've got a GeForce 3 TI200, and I was thinking of buying this one Does anyone have any experience with this one? Is it much better than the one I've got now?

For older games, it's a good choice.

However, this applies to Jaguar Warrior as well, if you wish to purchase a card that will last a few years, you'd be better off with a new solid DirectX 9 card, namely a Radeon 9600 (Pro or not Pro - though the difference is significant). The regular model is cheaper than a GF4 Ti and the Pro is of the same price or slightly more expensive.

On a three year old system that card'd be horribly bottlenecked, though. No matter how high tech it was in 2000. In that sense, for Jaguar Warrior a Radeon 8500/9100 might be a good card should you manage to find one. Inexpensive but still quite enough if you're not after full detail and big resolution.

	13-10-2003 02:13									#8
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Combat Ingrid Remember that your CPU might also act as a bottleneck in new games. Turn down the resolution and the eye candy in the games you play to see how many frames per second your CPU can handle before you decide what graphics card to buy.

At present time I've got a P4 2.4 GHz

The reason I'm looking for a new graphic card isn't because I need more Frames per second, but because it has acted very weird for the last couple of months...

	13-10-2003 02:18									#9
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Just to show the importance of the CPU (ADG, you should be fine, hehe...):

Attachment: image025.png
This has been downloaded 123 time(s).

	13-10-2003 02:28									#10
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Kassiopeia (...) namely a Radeon 9600 (Pro or not Pro - though the difference is significant). The regular model is cheaper than a GF4 Ti and the Pro is of the same price or slightly more expensive.

After searching the site I mentioned above (danish site), the Radeon is more expensive than the Geforce 4...

	13-10-2003 03:33									#11
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Kassi, I have a Dell Dimension 4100, 1 Ghz, 256 MB RAM, and the aforementioned GeForce 2 MX. I haven't even ever opened the PC up, so I actually don't know whether it's built into the motherboard or not.

	13-10-2003 03:38									#12
	Increase the size of your Attachments

You probably won't get good framerates in Half-Life 2 with a 1GHz CPU, even if you had a Radeon 9800 XT.

And the Dimension 4100 doesn't have the integrated GF2MX, that's an AGP card.

I wouldn't invest in anything higher than a GeForce 4 for that computer, but then again I wouldn't even invest in the GeForce 4.

Your best best would be to replace the system with like an Athlon XP 2500+ or something for cheap.

	13-10-2003 03:38									#13
	Full PM-box? Change here!

It's in the AGP slot.

But the problem with your computer is that your motherboard will only support 4x AGP while all the new cards run on 8x AGP.

Nonetheless, a GeForce FX 5200 is, I believe, good value. It's a very decent card for a more than very decent price. It should sell for around $75.

	13-10-2003 05:28									#14
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Asher You probably won't get good framerates in Half-Life 2 with a 1GHz CPU, even if you had a Radeon 9800 XT. And the Dimension 4100 doesn't have the integrated GF2MX, that's an AGP card. I wouldn't invest in anything higher than a GeForce 4 for that computer, but then again I wouldn't even invest in the GeForce 4. Your best best would be to replace the system with like an Athlon XP 2500+ or something for cheap.

You're right, I was looking at Planethalflife earlier today, and I have given up on running HL2 until I get my new PC sometime 2005-2006-ish. Not that long of a wait considering that HL2 will be early 2004.

	13-10-2003 19:21									#15
	Suffering from ads?

Look Jag, your computer is quite outdated and I suggest you buy a new one. I never buy staff like Dell or other brand name crap - I have enough trouble with brand name at work. I suggest you assemble your own computer. It should be 300$+ cheaper than a brand name one and should offer you the same performance.

But I hear you don't have time for games these days, cause your school sort of started.

	13-10-2003 22:14									#16
	Got spare money?

Well I'm gonna time getting the new card and HALO with thanksgiving break, and I still do have time on the weekends when I don't have cross country meets.

Last edited by Jaguar on 13-10-2003 at 22:19

	14-10-2003 13:47									#17
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

I'd say G4Ti4200 or Radeon 9600 (Pro)

The 9600 is DX9, the GF4 DX8.

	14-10-2003 15:23									#18
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

wait a sec, you wanna tell me, that if I get the ATI Radeon 9700 and put it on my P3 500 Mhz system, it will give me ~50 frames per second?

wow.

	14-10-2003 18:17									#19
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

You mean the UT2003 numbers? I think this test was just "flyby" through the levels (and at a low resolution, too). With lots of action, the framerate is probably lower

	14-10-2003 18:26									#20
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Does the human eye care after 24 fps?

	14-10-2003 18:33									#21
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Depends on the game.
Being a Quake3 addict, I can tell you that it's actually a big difference between 40fps and 80 fps. When you do a quick 180 degree turn, you will get a much more accurate shot at a high framerate. For that reason, I'm very happy about my Radeon 9700 Pro

For other kinds of games, you will notice that the game feels much "smoother" if you increase your framerate from lets say 25 to 60fps.

	14-10-2003 19:03									#22
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Oh, Quake 3 runs smooth as silk on my P3, RIVA TNT 2, as well.

	14-10-2003 19:44									#23
	Put an end to popups!

I have a Dell Dimension (insert numerb here) 1.5GHz with a measly 256Mb ram and a GeForce 2. I don't really play graphics intensive games much, so it is fine for me, but lately I have been playing Morrowind and it is s little 'sticky'.

I had assumed this was the memory and have planned on putting more memory in (maybe upgrading to 1025Mb). Do you think this will help, or will I also have to upgrade the video card?

	14-10-2003 21:08									#24
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Azazel Does the human eye care after 24 fps?

Remember that those are average framerates, half of them are below that number, some of them drastically so.

And 30fps is what the eye can see, motion-wise. Movies get away with 24.95 because the lens actually somewhat blurs the picture, rather than games where the image isn't blurred at all.

	14-10-2003 21:11									#25
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Rogan: Try adding another 512MB (or at least another 256MB). If that doesn't work well, upgrade the video card.

Morrowind is spectacularly poorly coded though, very inefficient graphically and also a RAM hog.

	14-10-2003 22:30									#26
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Asher Morrowind is spectacularly poorly coded though, very inefficient graphically and also a RAM hog.

A hell of a game though

Thanks - I'll try that (that was what I had planned, but all the talk of video cards made me wonder if that might be my bottleneck).

	15-10-2003 00:04									#27
	Support Apolyton

I have been looking around for a while, and have found these:

HighTech Excalibur ATI Radeon 9600 Pro
(or this ) and Point of View GeForce4 Ti4680

The first one is a little more expensive, but has DX9 support...

Which of them should I buy? Does anyone have any of these?

Last edited by Adagio on 15-10-2003 at 00:10

	15-10-2003 03:56									#28
	Put an end to popups!

The 9600 Pro, definitely.

DX9 support is a HUGE plus.

	15-10-2003 04:36									#29
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

So, what's the differeence between the 9600 Pro Ultra and 9600 Pro Ultimate?

	15-10-2003 04:52									#30
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

The Pro Ultra and Pro Ultimate stuff is specific to some board vendor...who knows. Ultimate is Sapphire's and it differs from the Ultra in that it has the Zalman noiseless heatsink on it instead of standard cooling (I just installed it myself).

The actual chips are (ignoring the worthless 9200 chips):
9600: 4 pipelines, 325 MHz core, 400MHz memory
9600 Pro: 4 pipelines, 400MHz core, 600MHz memory
9600 XT: 4 pipelines, 500MHz core, 600MHz memory

9800: 8 pipelines, 325MHz core, 620MHz memory
9800 Pro: 8 pipelines, 380MHz core, 700MHz memory
9800 XT: 8 pipelines, 412MHz core, 730MHz memory