Idea of the main difference between newer video cards.

Veggita2099 · Post by **Veggita2099** » Fri Jan 14, 2005 3:54 pm

Just by looking at the name of a lot of these newer video cards its hard to tell just how much better they are from each other. Im considering purchaseing a new card. I currently got a Geforce 3 ti 200 (128 ram). I have been looking around ebay and seen several cards that seem better for around $100 dollars, but trying to figure out if they are really THAT much better.

One I am looking at right now is http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?Vi ... 45325&rd=1

Does the ram really make a HUGE difference in the speed? Wish they had just stuck with names like Geforce 4, Geforce 5, etc etc.

Any suggestions? It don't have to be a Geforce card, just those seem to be the cheaper cards (price wise).

bizzle · Post by **bizzle** » Fri Jan 14, 2005 4:33 pm

Don't waste your money on a GeForce FX 5500. It's a huge piece of crap. Actually, all the FX cards are peices of crap.

Post by **Quzar** » Fri Jan 14, 2005 4:36 pm

Depending on the games you play, the GF3 should be able to handle almost anything. If you are considering going for GF fx or 4 card then you probably would want to go with a 9600 card as they are considered the best budget cards.

gamedudex2 · Post by **gamedudex2** » Fri Jan 14, 2005 4:50 pm

i' was thinking of upgrading but i'm fine i have a gforce 4 4600 ti with a 2.5 ghz p4 i'll upgrade 6 months or so after windows longhorn and all 3 new consoles come out

Clessy · Post by **Clessy** » Fri Jan 14, 2005 4:55 pm

I so need a new video card. It makes no since to have a 3ghz cpu and a radeon 9200 SE....

Matt · Post by **Matt** » Fri Jan 14, 2005 5:13 pm

Apparently it only start to make a significance difference in performance when its a really high end card

Veggita2099 · Post by **Veggita2099** » Fri Jan 14, 2005 6:02 pm

I looked at the ATI 9600, but it seems like it is no more powerful then my current Geforce 3.

mariobro · Post by **mariobro** » Fri Jan 14, 2005 6:25 pm

Having lots of RAM doesn't really tell you a lot about a videocard.

For instance, I have a 128 Mb budget card. Since it has a 64 bit bus, memory access is quite slow, so it actually performs worse than a higher-end 64 Mb card.

But I don't play games on mi PC, so it's fine. The extra RAM comes in handy when using complex 2D programs like Autocad, for example.

If you're using your card for games, then you should look for a card with good memory bandwidth, and the latest DirectX support. Don't pay too much for bells and whistles like pretty-looking fans and neon PCBs. Check performance first.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » Fri Jan 14, 2005 8:54 pm

I have a GeForce 4 Ti4600. Sometimes I wonder how it compares to "midrange" cards, and if those midrange cards would actually boost my performance.

My main problem is the shit proprietary motherboard from Dell and 250 (or maybe its 350...) Watt Dell PSU in the system. HL2 is like a friggin' jumping bean.

And I got like 13 frames per second on Dungeon Siege at times.

Post by **Quzar** » Fri Jan 14, 2005 9:01 pm

usually it works like this: new generation midrange = old generation high but not enthusiast high IN games of the previous generation.

Veggita2099 · Post by **Veggita2099** » Fri Jan 14, 2005 10:06 pm

I have come to the conclusion that I will have to spend more then $80 for a card that is a lot better then what I got now. Think I will wait till I get some tax money and get the top of the line Nvidia card that is in the $200 range. No point in getting something that is only a small step above what I got now.

Post by **Quzar** » Fri Jan 14, 2005 10:16 pm

You would probably be better off getting an x600 or something =\. even a good 6600 will run you above 200$

neoak · Post by **neoak** » Fri Jan 14, 2005 11:38 pm

Get a 6600 GT. They are a little better than the 9800 Pro (which i have, 128 MB).

Dont look at the FX series. The only midrange that it was to be considered was the 5900XT (budget core of the 5900). It is better than a 9600XT for example.

So, get a 6600GT>9800 Pro>5900XT>9600XT

However, it seems that ATi still has better image quality than nVidia, at least in the 9x00 vs the FX. Don't know about the X8x0 or the 6x00 series.

Mind you, the only card of the above that has a 256 bit memory bus is the 9800 Pro. If you use bandwidth intensive settings (FSAA, AA, etc), then get the Pro.

Post by **Quzar** » Sat Jan 15, 2005 12:16 am

neoak wrote:Get a 6600 GT. They are a little better than the 9800 Pro (which i have, 128 MB).

Dont look at the FX series. The only midrange that it was to be considered was the 5900XT (budget core of the 5900). It is better than a 9600XT for example.

So, get a 6600GT>9800 Pro>5900XT>9600XT

However, it seems that ATi still has better image quality than nVidia, at least in the 9x00 vs the FX. Don't know about the X8x0 or the 6x00 series.

Mind you, the only card of the above that has a 256 bit memory bus is the 9800 Pro. If you use bandwidth intensive settings (FSAA, AA, etc), then get the Pro.

thats close to what i was saying, except the 6600 normal (cant keep track of the symbols) is about on par with a 9800 pro with the exception of games that need the newest shaders and such.

9800 XT still beats a 6600, except on the newer games.

-Azathoth- · Post by **-Azathoth-** » Sat Jan 15, 2005 1:20 am

I bought a 9800proAIW and it fucking owns.

megaman8x · Post by **megaman8x** » Sat Jan 15, 2005 1:26 am

i have a 128 bit 128 mb 9200, should i upgrade to play doom3 or hl2?

Post by **Quzar** » Sat Jan 15, 2005 2:52 am

-Azathoth- wrote:I bought a 9800proAIW and it fudging owns.

i kick myself for having gone the 9800xt way. seperate tuner sucks.

zickfun · Post by **zickfun** » Sat Jan 15, 2005 6:46 am

9200 Should be able to play HL2 decently but defiently wont run Doom3.

Ti4600 > Radeon 9600 XT in all tests except those with AA and ASF.
9600 XT = Ti4200 in terms of performance.

Geforce 6600GT > Radeon 9800XT > Geforce 6600> Radoen 9800PRO.

Geforce 3 TI200 is enough to run everything except Doom3.

Hope that answers your questions =]

Don't buy an FX series...there all crap, theres always a better Radeon counterpart.

zickfun · Post by **zickfun** » Sat Jan 15, 2005 6:49 am

Ohhhhh and dont get conned into buying a 9200SE buy the 9200 Vanilla.

* illusion * · Post by *** illusion *** » Sat Jan 15, 2005 11:45 am

zickfun wrote:9200 Should be able to play HL2 decently but defiently wont run Doom3.

Ti4600 > Radeon 9600 XT in all tests except those with AA and ASF.
9600 XT = Ti4200 in terms of performance.

Geforce 6600GT > Radeon 9800XT > Geforce 6600> Radoen 9800PRO.

Geforce 3 TI200 is enough to run everything except Doom3.

Hope that answers your questions =]

Don't buy an FX series...there all crap, theres always a better Radeon counterpart.

What a bunch of BS. First of all, the 9600XT is faster then a Ti4600. Also, it beats the hell out of a Ti4200.