PDA

View Full Version : Graphics Cards



help_me
06-07-2004, 11:01 AM
Hi i want to get my computer a graphics card, one that is reasonably priced and has good performance in games.

i have found a few but i don't really know if they are that good

GeForce FX 5200 128Mb

and the

Radeon 9600SE 128Mb

I'm not sure how to tell if they are good for gaming.

and does any one have any suggestions of good cards?
Thanks

metla
06-07-2004, 11:12 AM
poor performance from those 2.

The bare minumim i would suggest would be a standard nvidia 5700,even then its low on the performance scale.

Pete O\'Neil
06-07-2004, 12:17 PM
> Hi i want to get my computer a graphics card, one
> that is reasonably priced and has good performance in
> games.

Umm those two things dont go hand in hand. Do a forum search and you'll find that for every graphics card reckonmendation (3-4 a week, god damm it gets repeatitive) anyone on a budget is reckonmended a Radeon 9600XT or Geforce FX5700. Both can be found for under $300 if you shop around. In order to get decent preformance in games those cards are the bare minimum you need. 5200's and 9600SE's are absolute crap and a waste of time when it comes to gaming, they are only any good for the family computer.

Melta i think we need us a Video card faq (i know they get out of date very quickly but atleast it would stop the constant repeatative question about video cards that all get the same answer) at the top we can put if in doubt and are your a cheapass then buy a Radeon 9600XT or Geforce FX5700. Then we can put in big bold letter underneath "if its too good to be true it probably is", irrelevant of card generation, the minimum you need to speed for a gaming card is $300.

help_me
06-07-2004, 12:26 PM
well pretty much any graphics card will be a step up from my 4mb one.

i can hardly play any games

metla
06-07-2004, 12:30 PM
In that case a 5200 will be a huge improvement, but you might as well save 40 bucks and get a g4mx, performance is much the same with some of the g4mx's outperforming the 5200.

I would still suggest a 5700 as a minimum purchase though.

What are the rest of your system specs?....no use wasting a good card on a system thatís incapable of running games anyway.

And do you have an agp slot?

Sb0h
06-07-2004, 12:48 PM
You also have to bear in mind (even if you have an AGP slot) whether it is AGP 2x, 4x or 8x. Newer AGP cards may not be compatible with the older AGP slots, you'll need to check the specs in your motherboard manual, especially the video card voltage.

help_me
06-07-2004, 12:54 PM
i am running
AMD Athlon 2400+
256mb RAM (getting more soon)
PC Chips M852 motherboard

and yes i have a agp slot with 8x support.

how do you tell that the cards are better than the others eg how do you find out there speed etc

Sb0h
06-07-2004, 01:20 PM
Check out reviews like this (http://graphics.tomshardware.com/graphic/20031229/index.html)

Most card manufacturer websites have links to reviews, or you can search on Google for them.

Sulley
06-07-2004, 03:48 PM
Recently I've purchased a Msi ATi Radeon 9800 Pro for $425 + GST.
Great card, overclocks like crazy, handle any games at top setting... (apart from far cry >.<)
But if u want something for a lower price ~$280, a ATi Radeon 9600XT would also be great.

Pete O\'Neil
06-07-2004, 04:16 PM
The MSI Radeon 9800Pro is an awsome card i got one for $450inc GST. This card actually has a 9800XT core so you can expect some wicked overclocking from it. A lil BIOS flashing also unlocks the 9800XT improved pixal shaders offering improved preformance.

help_me
06-07-2004, 05:14 PM
from the 2 cards at the begining what is really wrong with them, will they play todays new games

metla
06-07-2004, 05:30 PM
will they play todays games?

very badly.

I personally don't consider a fx5200 a gaming card at all,More something thats a better option then onboard.

And the 9600se is just a disgrace.

kiki
06-07-2004, 05:40 PM
> Do a forum search and you'll find that for every graphics card reckonmendation (3-4 a week, god damm it gets repeatitive) anyone on a budget is reckonmended a Radeon 9600XT or Geforce FX5700.

:^O Indeed. Stupid questions pop up every week. :^O

Just out of interest Pete, have you run 3dMark03 on that MSI card you have? If so what score do you get with default settings? I can get 5598 with my Ati Radeon 9800pro. That plays Far Cry marvellously at 40fps even with 4x AA on and mostly high/ultra high settings.

Murray P
06-07-2004, 05:48 PM
As metla says, if your going to by a low spec card save your money and get a ge4mx, the ge4 ti's out-perform an 5200.

Cheers Murray P

Pete O\'Neil
06-07-2004, 05:49 PM
I get 5950, but its also worth remember thats with out any overclocking or BIOS flashing my card wont preform any better than a standard 9800Pro. My system specs are:

AMD Athlon 1800+ @ 2.2GHz
1024Mb Kingston Hyper X PC3500 @ 200Mhz CL2.0
2x120Gb Seagate Barracudas 7200rpm 8mb Cache RAID 0

I need some better cooling when i up the core to 412MHz i get some artifacting in the Nature benchmark. I've got a feeling that the HSF isnt making very good contact with the GPU. I'm pretty confident that when the cooling problem is fixed breaking 6000 should be easy peasy.

Kenshin
06-07-2004, 07:47 PM
Yo Pete, have u tried flashing ur card yet?? It has a 360 core and hynix ram ... and I want to try and do it ...but would like some reasurance first : )

I have the same card, except I got mine for $425 incl GST.

BTW: I ve already tried running the card at XTs clock 412//365, and it works with out a glitch.

Pete O\'Neil
07-07-2004, 12:03 PM
Nope havent tryed flashing it yet, gotta find a floppy drive (not really a big problem). Tryed running mine at XT speeds but i get artifacts, so i stuck a 92mm Sunnon fan underneath it and the artifacting reduced significantly. Ive got a feeling that the actually cooler isnt making very good contact with the core/memory. Im going to take the cooler off and re-apply thermal paste, otherwise im going to have to get a new cooler for it. Ive been hearing conflicting stories in regards to flashing the BIOS, Adrian Rojok Pot and Bit-Tech say you can use any brand of BIOS as long as the ram is the same brand, a couple of other forums that i havent heard off say you have to use a BIOS by the same brand (MSI dont make a 9800XT :( ). So im not to sure who to believe, my gut is telling me that it should be fine, so when i get a new cooler i will flash it and let you know. Im planning on using the Club3D BIOS as people seem to be having alot of success with it. Theres a couple of guys over @ OCNZ with the same card but as of yet nobody has flashed the BIOS.

Just flashed your BIOS as long as you back up your original BIOS you should be fine. If it doesnt work you can either flash it back blind or use a PCI vid card. Worse come to worse i can send you a copy of my BIOS. As long as you can run @ XT speeds you wont have any problems.

This card has to be the best 9800pro on the market at the moment, the bundle is huge, 11 cds plus you get a guaranteed R360 core. And its not really the expensive compared to Powercolour and Gexcube (both cheaper slightly but with smaller bundles etc)

Kenshin
07-07-2004, 07:42 PM
yeah definitely, always a good idea to back up the original bios and should properly remember the exact sequence of flashing in case it goes wrong and you have to do a blind flash.....would be handy to have a PCI card too : )

Yeah, let me know how it goes : ) I ll be interested to know!

Greg S
08-07-2004, 11:25 AM
> > Hi i want to get my computer a graphics card, one
> > that is reasonably priced and has good performance
> in
> > games.
>
> Umm those two things dont go hand in hand. Do a forum
> search and you'll find that for every graphics card
> reckonmendation (3-4 a week, god damm it gets
> repeatitive) anyone on a budget is reckonmended a
> Radeon 9600XT or Geforce FX5700. Both can be found
> for under $300 if you shop around. In order to get
> decent preformance in games those cards are the bare
> minimum you need. 5200's and 9600SE's are absolute
> crap and a waste of time when it comes to gaming,
> they are only any good for the family computer.

These comments are completely over the top. How do you know what games he wants to play anyway? Besides I run two of the latest games, with really demanding graphics , both single player and online multiplayer with just an old Radeon 9000 256MB!

metla
08-07-2004, 12:08 PM
which games and at what settings?

I have a comp here running a fx5200 which can run nfs:u just fine at low detail and at 800x600.

Crank up the detail,raise the res to 1024x768 and apply a little aa and anti-trospic (that aint spelled correctly) filtering and it comes to a shuddering halt,rendering less then 1 frame per second.


Might as well buy an xbox if your after low res and low detail,Both are equally ugly.

Greg S
08-07-2004, 12:11 PM
My game settings are all about midway, card's settings are all default. I play at 1024x768 and get 25-35fps in America's Army

metla
08-07-2004, 12:21 PM
Well to start with Americas Army is designed for multiplayer and doesn't have demanding graphics by any standard,plus the model of card you have is incapable of rendering more recent dx effects so it ignores them,were a more modern card would attempt to render them and performance would suffer.

This is why a g4mx can outperform many better cards in such games as Halo.

and 25-35 fps is terrible,i would upgrade.....:D


The entire point of pc gaming is to have shading,lighting,detail,particles and a good framerate,all things that would kill a lesser card.

Only my point of view though.

Greg S
08-07-2004, 12:27 PM
> The entire point of pc gaming is to ...

...kill the evil sons of spawn enemy! :D (which I do quite effectively) ;)

Pete O\'Neil
08-07-2004, 01:16 PM
> My game settings are all about midway, card's
> settings are all default. I play at 1024x768 and get
> 25-35fps in America's Army


AA was designed to run on Geforce 2 hardware with reasonable framerates so i'd hope you could run it on your 9000. Most modern games such as Battlefield Vietnam and Unreal Tournament 2004 require a 9600 alteast, and thats just for 1024x768 with low levels of AA + AF.

Greg S
08-07-2004, 01:32 PM
> AA was designed to run on Geforce 2 hardware with
> reasonable framerates so i'd hope you could run it on
> your 9000. Most modern games such as Battlefield
> Vietnam and Unreal Tournament 2004 require a 9600
> alteast, and thats just for 1024x768 with low levels
> of AA + AF.

Actually UT2004 runs great - although I haven't got a clue what the framerates are. Probably shocking but it really appears fine. Maybe I'm just not used to any better :^O

Sb0h
08-07-2004, 01:58 PM
I used to play Far Cry with a Geforce2 (with no detail), and didn't know what I was missing until I upgraded to a Radeon 9800 pro. Really if you want to get the best gaming experience you need a good gaming card. The game may be "playable" at a crap resolution and with terrible frame rates but there's a whole 'nother level of enjoyment when you have a good card.

:D

Pete O\'Neil
08-07-2004, 02:24 PM
> Actually UT2004 runs great - although I haven't got a
> clue what the framerates are. Probably shocking but
> it really appears fine. Maybe I'm just not used to
> any better :^O
>

Do you have AF + AA turned on? what about in game detail settings? What are they set at? Im not trying to offend but i think it would be possiable to make UT2K4 run a gf2mx. Having a nice resolution, reasonably high detail settings and in game graphics options turned to high really do make a difference. I recently went from a Geforce 4 Ti4200 to a Radeon 9800pro and didnt expect to see much difference. This enabled me to turn on AF + AA and crank up the in game detail settings. The gaming experience is so much better now, im finally able to unlock the full potential of games such as UT2K4 and BFV. As said earlier by melta if you dont want to use AA + AF, you want low resolutions and crap detail then buy a console its alot cheaper. Gaming on the PC isnt a cheap hobby, but its just so much more rewarding than gaming on a console. If you shop around and invest your money wisely you can get a good pc capable of playing most modern games with some AA + AF, 1024x768 res, and moderate in game detail settings for under $2000. You dont nessesarily need the most powerful card known to man but your doing yourselve a disservice if you game on a low end card.

At the end of the day you have to decide how important eye candy is to you. If you dont game that often you can live without high end cards, but the moment you taste all the eye candy goodness you'll be hooked.

(its amazing how many people who game dont know what AA + AF is, and then say that their graphics cards can handle all the modern games.)

Greg S
08-07-2004, 02:45 PM
> Do you have AF + AA turned on?
Both set to Application Preference

>what about in game
> detail settings?

In UT2004 they're on the highest. In AA they're all mid-level.

> As said
> earlier by melta if you dont want to use AA + AF, you
> want low resolutions and crap detail
The detail etc looks great on both games.

>then buy a
> console its alot cheaper.
No thanks
>If you shop around and invest
> your money wisely you can get a good pc capable of
> playing most modern games with some AA + AF, 1024x768
> res, and moderate in game detail settings for under
> $2000.
Why would I go spend two grand when I have a perfectly adequate setup already. It might be worth it if I was a hardcore fanatic gamer. But I'm not a hardcore fanatic gamer.
> At the end of the day you have to decide how
> important eye candy is to you.
It's not - I play for the simulated action. My PC is a work machine, with powerful enough graphics to handle the likes of Photoshop and half a dozen apps simultaneously.

> (its amazing how many people who game dont know what
> AA + AF is, and then say that their graphics cards
> can handle all the modern games
It's amazing how many people don't know what the radius of the moon is to know that it affects Earth's gravity. Knowing exactly how anastropic filtering and anti-aliasing work doesn't mean I can't switch them on or off to find the best settings
>

metla
08-07-2004, 02:51 PM
Couple of points.

He never said you had to know how Anti-ailising works,just that its there.....and you obviously do so its a moot point anyhow...

as to this-"The detail etc looks great on both games"....please don't kid yourself,the picture quality and framerate of your card is at the very bottom of the scale.

Not to say you shouldn't like it exactly how it is but there can be no doubt it can't even begin to get traction against even a current mid-range card.

Greg S
08-07-2004, 02:58 PM
> Couple of points.
>
> He never said you had to know how Anti-ailising
> works,just that its there.....and you obviously do so
> its a moot point anyhow...

yep
>
> as to this-"The detail etc looks great on both
> games"....please don't kid yourself,the picture
> quality and framerate of your card is at the very
> bottom of the scale.
>
> Not to say you shouldn't like it exactly how it is
> but there can be no doubt it can't even begin to get
> traction against even a current mid-range card.

I'll have to go and look at a demo somewhere to be able to evaluate that. Suffice it to say I've been quite happy with what I've got, apart from the framerate which I guess could be a lot better (I've heard of some guys getting 100fps!) :O

Pete O\'Neil
08-07-2004, 03:29 PM
> > (its amazing how many people who game dont know
> what
> > AA + AF is, and then say that their graphics cards
> > can handle all the modern games
> It's amazing how many people don't know what the
> radius of the moon is to know that it affects Earth's
> gravity. Knowing exactly how anastropic filtering
> and anti-aliasing work doesn't mean I can't switch
> them on or off to find the best settings

I was trying to get at the point that alot of people go around claiming they can run the latest game, yet dont take in consideration AA + AF. Recently there has been a big shift in the gaming industry away from pure FPS in the quest for better image quality ([H]ardOCP recent change of their reviewing process is testment to this fact). If you look at a game without AA it is very blocky and not smooth, turn on AA and its alot smoother and pleasing on the eye. Its one thing to run UT2K4 with detail settings at high, and its another thing to run UT2k4 with high detail settings and AA + AF. Application preference as a rule of thumb means that AA + AF wont be used.

kiki
08-07-2004, 04:14 PM
> I'll have to go and look at a demo somewhere to be able to evaluate that. Suffice it to say I've been quite happy with what I've got, apart from the framerate which I guess could be a lot better (I've heard of some guys getting 100fps!)

There is absolutely no point in getting 100fps if your monitor refresh rate is only say 85Hz (only capable of 85fps). It just shows tearing on the screen and makes the graphics even worse. That's why with the powerful video cards you should turn on VSync to slow them down a little.

My old Geforce MX440 could play every game, but very poorly. With far cry you don't know what you are missing. Like if you turn the full details up, you can see fish in the water, birds flying around, the lights sway etc all sorts of cool stuff that you miss out on with useless cards.

Mirddes
08-07-2004, 04:24 PM
what card could i get for $100?
iv got a ge4mx440
is it worth upgrading to a $100 card?

Sulley
08-07-2004, 04:34 PM
Mirddes, short answer - NO
With 100 bucks there is no desent card that you can buy which would significantly improve ur gaming performance.

Whats ur specs? What games do u play / want to play? perhaps ur cpu or ram might be limiting ur frame rates, which means u should look at upgrading those before ur graphics card.

Mirddes
08-07-2004, 04:42 PM
um, my specs are...

AthlonXp 2100
512mb DDR ram
ge4mx440
60Gb HDD


and the games i play

nfs:u
gta:vc
bf1942
planetside

Pete O\'Neil
08-07-2004, 05:07 PM
Those games arent that graphicly intensive, so unless your willing to shell out more cash dont bother with a GFX upgrade. What core is that Athlon? T-bred or Palmino? If its a t-bred b and youve got a solid motherboard you could overclock it and get a cheap preformance increase. T-bred B's overclock like crazy, you would struggle to finda t-bred b that wont do 2.0Ghz. My 1800+ will go from 1529mhz (11.5 x 133) to 1916mhz (11.5x166) on stock vcore + HSF. I would expect a 2100+ to do the same.

Pete O\'Neil
08-07-2004, 05:09 PM
> um, my specs are...
>
> AthlonXp 2100
> 512mb DDR ram
> ge4mx440
> 60Gb HDD

theres no pointing telling us what size harddrive you have, size wont affect preformance. You would be better telling how fast it spins eg. RPM? What interface it uses ATA100, ATA133 or SATA150? How much cache/buffer? Those things all affect preformance.

Mirddes
08-07-2004, 05:14 PM
i dont know what the core is, and since im staying on a farm(im not at home), i cant check, dialup hurts.
would swaping out that graphics card, or any of teh components for that matter, void the warrenty?

and please dont mock me, slow computers are messing with my head

Pete O\'Neil
08-07-2004, 05:47 PM
Did you build it yourself? If not who built it for you? HP Compaq? If it was a large company such as Compaq or HP then it might void your warrenty. Have a read of your manual/warrenty and see what it says.

Have you ever opened your PC up before? Changed CD-ROM/HDD's?

Greg S
08-07-2004, 07:44 PM
> and please dont mock me,

Pete and others... yeah give the guy a damn break - he's called on us for help, not to be humiliated. You hardware wizards are a bit up yourselves hey?. This guy is humble enough to read thru the thread, realise that there's some help to be had here, and has exteneded himself by asking - don't blow him away with your damn jargon and other Cow Droppings!

metla
09-07-2004, 12:23 AM
Mirddes,your comp should do a reasonable job of running those games,nothing great but certainly playable.....and judgeing by the fact you call your computer slow....im starting to think.......You...need....to...tidy up your software enviorment....This will free up resources and give back a lot of grunt..

In a nutshell it involves whittling down the programs running in the background so only those that are necercary are running,getting rid of all spyware and rogue software,and getting rid of all the temp files windows has stashed all over your harddrive.

In many cases this does miles more benifit then an upgrade,makes a sluggish grumpy comp into a mean lean instantly responsive fist-fighting machine.

Kenshin
09-07-2004, 02:08 AM
Mirrdes...fork out $220 odd dollars and get a 9600 Pro and u ll be better off....

Greg S, seriously ..go online and look for some screen shots of farcry with pixel shader 2.0 or 3.0 ...or UT2k4 with 8xAA 16xAF at 1280 x 1024 and tell me UR games look good!!

A FX5200 is no better than a GF4 MX with DX 9 support, it will by no means handle any new games at a playable framerate!! And by god...if u think 25 to 35 fps is playable...then I guess u really a not much of a gamer at all....

metla
09-07-2004, 02:26 AM
>...then I guess u really a not much of a gamer at all....

That sort of statement just makes ya look silly,there are no standards of gamer leetness.

Kenshin
09-07-2004, 03:09 PM
> >...then I guess u really a not much of a gamer at
> all....
>
> That sort of statement just makes ya look silly,there
> are no standards of gamer leetness.

Well, its like saying u r a racer but you drive a 1.3 litre car O.o

Greg S
09-07-2004, 06:08 PM
Greg S, seriously ..go online and look for some
> screen shots of farcry

What the x is far cry? Why should I compare it with what I play (I assume it's a game)
with pixel shader 2.0 or 3.0
> ...or UT2k4 with 8xAA 16xAF at 1280 x 1024 and tell
> me UR games look good!!

>And by god...if u think 25 to
> 35 fps is playable...

Meet me in an online game, 1 vs 1 and you'll see!

> then I guess u really a not much
> of a gamer at all....

I agree with Metla - what kinda standard are u trying to impose! lol lol :^O

Kenshin
09-07-2004, 06:55 PM
>Meet me in an online game, 1 vs 1 and you'll see!

that doesn't mean that if u are playing against someone who is as good as you, the person on a comp running at 60+fps will not own you O.o

Far Cry, is a new and very good FPS games that uses the latest technologies in graphics cards....what I was trying to point out is that if you play a game like that, even if you can run it ..you will be missing out on what is now considered an integral part of gaming ==> IQ
"Image Quality".

And trust me, if you get use to playing a game on 60+ fps you will NOT be able to go back down to 20+ FPS and still enjoy the game!!

metla
09-07-2004, 07:04 PM
Largely true,although some people on a near dead dial up and suffering a poor framerate can still kick ass,skill after all being the biggest factor.

Besides,my desktop only has a g4ti,please comence telling me im no gamer.

And i bite.

Especially at teh stupids.....1111....l337.....and all that jazz.

Mirddes
11-07-2004, 12:30 PM
i got my comp from farmers, it was made by hyundai
my dad wont let me open it, because of the warrenty
-------------------------
thank you, iv always thaught of myself as somewhat humble =D
-------------------------
i didnt call my comp slow, i said i was using slow comps
iv been staying on a farm, as of late, and my aunt and uncle have 2 slow, second hand, computers with dialup
my computer on teh other hand has jsut recently had a clean install
and this time im staying on top of the junk
-------------------------
id love to beable to fork over $220
but i only haev $150 (i made another $50 yesterday)
-------------------------
sorry abuot the slow replys pplz, i normaly try to be swift, but gardening for money takes all day