PDA

View Full Version : Geforce brands - What is best?



mejobloggs
23-09-2003, 11:11 AM
Is Gainward a cheap quality one or what? Why is there so much of them everywhere?

Is MSI good, I wouldnt know, please tell me what is best.

mejobloggs
23-09-2003, 11:13 AM
What about albatron?

CYaBro
23-09-2003, 11:27 AM
Have a read through this (http://www.tomshardware.com/graphic/20030714/index.html)

I think MSI make the best Geforce graphics cards :)
Can be a little bit more expensive than some of the cheaper brands but you always get a lot more in the box!

mejobloggs
23-09-2003, 01:11 PM
cool, thanks. I thought MSI was quite good, but I wasnt sure.

Big John
23-09-2003, 02:22 PM
I have a Gainward GForce FX5900 and it certainly is not cheap quality. It is a very good and very fast card. I use it with Unreal Tournament 2003 with all the setting turned to full and get no stutter or lag at all.

On my Ti4600 I have to cut things back because it does not run fast enough. This is with a 2Ghz CPU and 512MB mem as well.

Biggles
23-09-2003, 02:53 PM
Very happy with my Leadtek Ti4400.

metla
23-09-2003, 03:04 PM
Im so happy with my asus ti4200 i've been thinking of gold plating her and mounting it over the fireplace.

.................................HA

Dunno why my wife thinks i take this computer carry on too far......

JamesStewart
23-09-2003, 03:23 PM
What people don't understand that most of these cards are made in the same factory! USALLY (not always) the only differance is the contense of the box and the supplied software. I mean, 4 or 5 months ago I got a Radeon 9800 PRO from Creative for $850 I think and Power Colour where selling them for $1,250. These was NO differance in card performace that I can notice.

JamesStewart
23-09-2003, 03:24 PM
What I forgot to add was that the cards were made in the sam factory....

metla
23-09-2003, 03:35 PM
The difference in price is reflected in quality control,lifespan and the quality of the ram.As well as extra's on the card itself and the level of cooling.

When it comes to the cheapest product,i wouldn't touch it with a 60ft stick unless it had aquired a good name.Look at those eagle cards as an example,i have seen quite a few disgrunteled buyers..

As far as performence varibles,what set-up did u use to bench them?...thats not saying i would expect to see a vast amount of difference if any,just wondering if they were tested,rather then just....used.

Anyway,Creative video cards are i believe just bought and re-branded by creative,as far as i know they dont have a manufacting plant capable of making the 9800's.

JamesStewart
23-09-2003, 03:55 PM
I used 3D Mark 2003 to test. I mate has a Power Colour Radeon 9800 PRO and I just stuck that into my machine. There was a differance of 30 or 40 points I think, no big w33t

JamesStewart
23-09-2003, 03:56 PM
But I have to say, ATI 9800 PRO cards are STILL!!! l33t over Nvidia cards :P

JamesStewart
23-09-2003, 03:59 PM
Sorry for all the extra posts but I keep thinking of stuff. Can any one tell me why the hell it matters if card (a) can get 123 fps on a game and card (b) can only get 89 fps on the same game. The human eye only sees at 32~33 fps..... :| just a thought

metla
23-09-2003, 04:06 PM
The human eye can see far more then 35fps,if it couldn't then we wouldn't be able to see objects in motion,Snowflakes and aircraft would be invisible.

I can't explain further but i did get the above quote from a study done a few years ago,they deduced that the human eye could condition itself to tell the difference even when fps rose over 100fps.

Ill see if i can track down the article but it was a few years ago that i chanced upon it,chances are slim.

As to the 89 vs 139 fps,that is why i have a ti4200 rather then an ati card....

JamesStewart
23-09-2003, 04:09 PM
Umm, it is proven that ATI are making WAY better cards than the Ti and even the FX serise, so sorry, your loss!

metla
23-09-2003, 04:12 PM
heh...my loss?

lmao.

not once did i say the nvidia cards are better,i was saying that 89fps is better for me then then spending an extra 500 dollars to get the exact same game running at an extra 50fps.

My geforce will do me for a couple more years by my reckoning.

And i wouldn't touch an fx with a 160 foot stick.

metla
23-09-2003, 04:17 PM
well,as luck would have it,i found the article.Its in 2 pieces and a good read for any one interested in the subject.

http://amo.net/NT/02-21-01FPS.html

and

http://amo.net/NT/05-24-01FPS.html

and a snippit...

The overwhelming solution to a more realistic game play, or computer video has been to push the human eye past the misconception of only being able to perceive 30 FPS. Pushing the Human Eye past 30 FPS to 60 FPS and even 120 FPS is possible, ask the video card manufacturers, an eye doctor, or a Physiologist. We as humans CAN and DO see more than 60 frames a second.

mejobloggs
23-09-2003, 06:56 PM
Now I just need some money. I was looking at a Geforce 4 Ti 4200, or a MSI FX 5600 Ultra.

Problem is, I only have an Athlon Xp 2000, with 256mb ram. Current graphics is Geforce 2 mx 400.

Any point in upgrading?

I want to be able to run the new Need for Speed Underground, because it looks cool as(for me).

JamesStewart
23-09-2003, 07:29 PM
that does sound a little dodgy.....