PDA

View Full Version : Buying A BUDGET Gaming Card



CaptainVincent
25-11-2007, 07:24 PM
Hey Guys.

Just Buying A Budget Gaming Card For Older Games Like Half-Life 2, Battlefield 2 And Maybe Call Of Duty 4 On Low (Since People Have Been Playing It On 9550's)

Just Making A Poll On Which Card Would Be Better For Money .vs. Performance.

The_End_Of_Reality
25-11-2007, 07:29 PM
Well what do you call budget? I know someone who thinks an $850 8800GTX is budget...

What are YOU wanting to spend?

mejobloggs
25-11-2007, 07:41 PM
I would say he considers around $200 to be budget

CaptainVincent
25-11-2007, 07:44 PM
Well Thats What The Poll Is, The Poll Is My Choice Of Cards.

The_End_Of_Reality
25-11-2007, 08:42 PM
I would say he considers around $200 to be budget Well the poll was not there when I posted.

I would suggest an 8600GT 256MB in that case

Pete O'Neil
26-11-2007, 07:37 AM
If you pop over to Tomsharware.com and read there VGA chart you'll see the 2600XT is marginally faster than the 8600GT so is probably the better buy ;)

pctek
26-11-2007, 08:29 AM
Nope, can't do that because while I might choose one based on its GPU - you ruined the poll by having crap brands in it.

Greven
26-11-2007, 08:31 AM
I don't trust the albatron brand, so I agree with Pete - go with the 2600 XT

JSF_enthusiast
26-11-2007, 09:54 AM
Take your pick between the 2600XT and the 8600GT, I slighter favour the 8600GT (nvidia is doing better with drivers at the moment) but to be quite honest their is little difference between the two (power does favour the 2600XT though, you want see any benefit though cause the 2600XT only has a 128bit bus which limits both cards).

Trev
26-11-2007, 10:22 AM
This would be my choice.
Leadtek WinFast PX8600 GT TDH Video Card, GeForce 8600 GT, 512MB, DDR2, PCIe-16, TV out, DVI, HDTV, SLI ready
$214-76 from Ascent.
:)

Battleneter2
26-11-2007, 10:31 AM
I vote a 8600GTS beats all of those cards including the HD2600XT for about $20 more.

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ATI/HD_2600_XT/11.html

http://www.pricespy.co.nz/search.php?q=8600gts&all=0

CaptainVincent
26-11-2007, 10:32 AM
8800GTX got owned by the 8600GT check the link haha

http://www23.tomshardware.com/graphics_2007.html?modelx=33&model1=706&model2=855&chart=289

Battleneter2
26-11-2007, 10:36 AM
8800GTX got owned by the 8600GT check the link haha

http://www23.tomshardware.com/graphics_2007.html?modelx=33&model1=706&model2=855&chart=289

ROTFL yea kinda misleading, 1024x768 so it would have been CPU bottlenecked, The GTX was probably running at about 3% hehe.


needless to say, order is soon restored, although still clearly CPU bound, funny engine FlightsimX.

http://www23.tomshardware.com/graphics_2007.html?modelx=33&model1=706&model2=855&chart=293

SolMiester
26-11-2007, 10:59 AM
I vote a 8600GTS beats all of those cards including the HD2600XT for about $20 more.

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ATI/HD_2600_XT/11.html

http://www.pricespy.co.nz/search.php?q=8600gts&all=0

Yes I was going to say dont go via Toms Charts. The 8600GT will beat the 2600XT in just about every benchmark.....

Battleneter2
26-11-2007, 11:17 AM
Yes I was going to say dont go via Toms Charts. The 8600GT will beat the 2600XT in just about every benchmark.....

Yea I agree the 2600XT is a poor option, slower more expensive.

The 8600GTS is around 20-30% faster than the 8600GT, what I was trying to say is, if he is considering a 2600XT @ $207 may as well have a dam good look at the much faster 8600GTS at around $230.

SolMiester
26-11-2007, 12:11 PM
Just realised, they were talking the GT, not GTS....my bad!

CaptainVincent
26-11-2007, 12:46 PM
Man that 8600GT looks mighty fine at $168. But yeah if I have the money in a few weeks will get a 8600GTS. Any more cards I should consider between $150-250?

Adge
26-11-2007, 04:08 PM
I hear the 8600GT is a pretty good card. Personally, I had a Powercolor NVidia card and I would avoid them.

You might want to mention the specs of your computer. I'm running a AMD 3500 CPU and found that the CPU was so much of a bottleneck it wasn't worth upgrading from my 6600GT video card...

qazwsxokmijn
26-11-2007, 06:36 PM
8600GT is a good card at that price IMO. 8600GTS maybe not, though, as they're only around $100 cheaper than an 8800GTS.

CaptainVincent
26-11-2007, 09:41 PM
I have

AMD Sempron 3200+
768MB DDR333
GeForce FX 5200

I am upgrading parts respectively

AMD64 X2 4000-4200+ Socket 939
2GB DDR400 Since mobo only supports DDR400
GeForce 8600GT

Not upgrading mobo, These upgrades should be fine for playing half-life 2, battlefield 2, maybe even crysis in DX9 on low settings.

Thanks guys you are all a real help.

Anything else I should consider?

qazwsxokmijn
26-11-2007, 09:54 PM
You say you have an FX5200 - that's either a PCI only or an AGP. What motherboard do you have?

chiefnz
26-11-2007, 10:34 PM
Budget and Gaming generally don't go together... if you're a gamer money wouldn't be an issue because quite frankly if you're not buying the best then you're not a "gamer"

my 2cents

CaptainVincent
27-11-2007, 12:53 PM
I have the old PCI version of GeForce FX5200 from my old computer, my current cimputer has PCI-Express x16

And btw chiefnz, you don't necessarily have to have the "best" to be a gamer, you might not want to spend over $1000 because the user may not need a future proof computer. 8600GT is completely fine for my needs.

msnforum
27-11-2007, 01:22 PM
You just have to be conscious of what you buy. Make the right choice and also consider what will happen when new products come out.

Gaming pc doesn't have to be everything with the best spec cause in real life those with limited budget will not be able to afford it. Choose the 8600GT, it's the best product for the budget.

motorbyclist
27-11-2007, 09:48 PM
Nope, can't do that because while I might choose one based on its GPU - you ruined the poll by having crap brands in it.
yep

Man that 8600GT looks mighty fine at $168. But yeah if I have the money in a few weeks will get a 8600GTS. Any more cards I should consider between $150-250?
i say to look at the gigabyte, XFX, or better yet the asus (also called asustek) brand nvidia cards
http://www.pricespy.co.nz/pno_10540.html
http://www.nzoczone.com/product_info.php?products_id=5975

I have

AMD Sempron 3200+
768MB DDR333
GeForce FX 5200

I am upgrading parts respectively

AMD64 X2 4000-4200+ Socket 939
2GB DDR400 Since mobo only supports DDR400
GeForce 8600GT

Not upgrading mobo, These upgrades should be fine for playing half-life 2, battlefield 2, maybe even crysis in DX9 on low settings.

Thanks guys you are all a real help.

Anything else I should consider?

you should consider getting an AM2 motherboard rather than investing in more obsolete technology;)

will save in the long run


Budget and Gaming generally don't go together... if you're a gamer money wouldn't be an issue because quite frankly if you're not buying the best then you're not a "gamer"

my 2cents

absolute bull****, unless by "gamer" you mean "poser with short man syndrome"

The_End_Of_Reality
28-11-2007, 06:22 AM
Budget and Gaming generally don't go together... if you're a gamer money wouldn't be an issue because quite frankly if you're not buying the best then you're not a "gamer" Total RUBBISH you Google gamer an the first link you get states "Historically, a gamer was usually someone who played role-playing games or war games but more recently the term includes computer and video game players as well. While the term technically includes those who do not necessarily consider themselves to be gamers (i.e., casual gamers) it is commonly used to identify people who spend much of their leisure time playing or reading about games." So you are talking crap, you do not need to be some stuck up loser with more money than sence to be a gamer :yuck:

motorbyclist
28-11-2007, 09:33 AM
So you are talking crap, you do not need to be some stuck up loser with more money than sence to be a gamer :yuck:

i find the guys (in ANY sport) with the flashest gear tend to just be posers, and are often making up for a total lack of skill

and who needs two 8800gtx in SLI anyway? i mean, seriously, and amd 5600 is more than enough for a processor and they're less than $300. hell i run a 4000 without any lag, and still have a 6600GT video card. still an avid gamer despite my lack of the absolute best gear

mejobloggs
28-11-2007, 02:22 PM
Being a gamer doesn't mean someone that plays games at max graphics. It means someone that is into games, and plays them a lot

pctek
28-11-2007, 03:24 PM
and who needs two 8800gtx in SLI anyway? i

People who want to play Crysis with everything max.

I was unsurprised to see that with my single 8800GTX it wouldn't let me.

Anyway we all know its a matter of budget. Some people can afford it and if so, that makes them rich, not posers or any other derogatory term.

I think jjjjj has the best high end hardware at present. Seeing as he is into MS FSX I bet it needs it too.

I have a friend who also plays it on lesser hardware but he'd love to be able to rush out and buy the latest in graphics etc.

motorbyclist
28-11-2007, 03:33 PM
Anyway we all know its a matter of budget. Some people can afford it and if so, that makes them rich, not posers or any other derogatory term.
.

alot of people are posers/dickheads though, the ones that like to gloat about their system, waste ridiculous amounts of money, talk all the talk, including talking down to poorer gamers, but get completely pwned by a 13 year old on his mum's machine:lol:

of course that doesn't apply to everyone, but those who come to a thread about budget pc parts and say you aren't a gamer without an expensive system are generally in that category

i'm just saying money + hardware != skill

The_End_Of_Reality
28-11-2007, 05:19 PM
i find the guys (in ANY sport) with the flashest gear tend to just be posers, and are often making up for a total lack of skill

and who needs two 8800gtx in SLI anyway? i mean, seriously, and amd 5600 is more than enough for a processor and they're less than $300. hell i run a 4000 without any lag, and still have a 6600GT video card. still an avid gamer despite my lack of the absolute best gear Yeah, I would agree.

Yeah. I am running a 4400+ with no issues... Though I did treat myself to an 8800GTS for my birthday a few months ago :p


Being a gamer doesn't mean someone that plays games at max graphics. It means someone that is into games, and plays them a lot Well that really sums up my quote from Wikipedia :p

PCtek, I have been playing Crysis on very high settings (XP tweak) on my 8800GTS with no issues (that I can see playing left handed :p), just need to know what to set things to...

pctek
29-11-2007, 08:21 AM
PCtek, I have been playing Crysis on very high settings (XP tweak) on my 8800GTS with no issues (that I can see playing left handed :p), just need to know what to set things to...

I tweaked it to.
It runs OK.
But it IS optimised for high end stuff.

Hated it anyway. HL2 still rules.

Jimmy D
29-11-2007, 08:51 AM
HL2 Represent

SolMiester
29-11-2007, 09:01 AM
Put the resolution down enough, any current generation will run current games...

Only trouble is LCD native resolutions. Mine is 1650x1050, so a GTS will not cut it for Crysis on my PC

Jimmy D
29-11-2007, 09:06 AM
Put the resolution down enough, any current generation will run current games...

Only trouble is LCD native resolutions. Mine is 1650x1050, so a GTS will not cut it for Crysis on my PC

my native res is 1650x1080 and im running a 7900GS. i get decent FPS on HL2 but for newer games i'd like more so i crank the res down a bit but the problem is that they dont make widescreen resolutions for games that arn't the native res. e.g. a lower resolution at the same scale as 1650x1080

SolMiester
29-11-2007, 09:21 AM
Quite right Jimmy.....I'm in for a completely new system now, but the other half says I have to wait until the rental property sells.......doh!

motorbyclist
29-11-2007, 11:12 AM
my native res is 1650x1080 and im running a 7900GS. i get decent FPS on HL2 but for newer games i'd like more so i crank the res down a bit but the problem is that they dont make widescreen resolutions for games that arn't the native res. e.g. a lower resolution at the same scale as 1650x1080

yeah i steer clear of widescreen for that exact reason

SolMiester
29-11-2007, 11:21 AM
Most, if not all new games support WS LCD motorbyclist, the trouble with WS is that they tend to be bigger than average and require more powerful cards.

motorbyclist
29-11-2007, 11:53 AM
Most, if not all new games support WS LCD motorbyclist, the trouble with WS is that they tend to be bigger than average and require more powerful cards.

well i do still enjoy alot of older games

i'm not saying widescreen is bad, just i've deliberately not bought it to prevent problems. ironically my 20" main lcd's native res of 1400x1050 means all the in-game text on bf1942 is unreadable for some retarded EA games related reason

i'm undecided as to widescreen's benefits; you can ultimately "see" a bit more horizontally, but i don't actually think it helps that much (occasionally game on my parent's 23" widescreen system)

besides, i went from crt to lcd to save space! why would a get a wider one:lol:

grahic
04-12-2007, 08:28 PM
My Computer is
2.9ghz Celeron D
1024 DDR400 Ram
160G HardDrive
MSI Motherboard
And ATI Radeon 9600 PRO (256DDR) Graphic Card

It plays World of Warcraft, Half Life 2, Counter Strike Source, and Fear fine in 600*800 with median-low details.

I think it is best to buy a $100 Graphic card from trade me or something.

SolMiester
04-12-2007, 09:52 PM
The Celeron is crippling that pc. If you want to game, a better cpu would be in order with any graphic card upgrade...

motorbyclist
05-12-2007, 12:22 AM
The Celeron is crippling that pc. If you want to game, a better cpu would be in order with any graphic card upgrade...

while that is very, VERY good advice, i think the point of the post was that he can game on such a "lower spec" system