Graphics Card Suggestions... - Page 2

MilitantB0B · 2004-01-04, 09:05 AM

Originally Posted by dscytherulez

$150-$200? Radeon 9600 XT.

Excellent, that is the one I was thinking about buying already, nice to hear someone else say its a good buy though.

Alright, think I'm gonna go with this one. Basicaly just because I have real good expeirences with Asus motherboards.

Rbstr · 2004-01-04, 12:21 PM

Go asus! there a good choise both my asus mobos and my video card have shown to be durable and stable (save the one time i shorted a memory chip)

PaintballerEJG · 2004-01-04, 12:54 PM

Okay,

DO NOT BUY THAT 9600XT!! Go to pricewatch.com and go to the videocard section and find the geforce fx5900. You can get one for 195 bucks and it its SO much better than the 9600xt. Just look at benchmarks. Oh, and if you go for the 5900, make sure you get one with the 256bit memory interface. I bought the XFX version, and it is absolutely amazing for the price.

Just promise me you dont buy the 9600XT, i will even give you a link.
Well I dont know where the XFX's went, but here is a 256bit 128mb Albatron 5900 for $209:
http://www.buyxtremegear.com/al4.html
trust me, this is a much much better deal. Also, you can look at other stores too, just make sure the memory interface is 256bit.

Rbstr · 2004-01-04, 02:32 PM

The FX5900 get slughtered at dx9 heavy benches by all the radys except the 9200 (and the se's)

Ait'al · 2004-01-04, 03:03 PM

Ha, overclocking is not the ultimate say in the quality of the chip. Performance is!

I've seen quite a few reports of 9800 Pro's going for $239 as of late. Save up a few bills

OCing taken to the limit of cooling is the ultimate qaulity of the chip. manufacturing wise.

And it takes a 64 bit processor form AMD to even match Intels 32 bit. 8p Intel if still finer quality manufacturing as it always has been either way. And i will alway prefer them because it will take a hell of a lot better design for me to like something else better.

And i hope Intel wipes AMD off the market or intel makes there 64 bits in a year or two completly seperatly from AMD designs and wipes them out of bussiness.

Though it would be funny if they did it with a 32 bit chip! Intels not even playing chip wise yet and AMDs already swinging hard 8) so there! I win. or will

What would be realy funny is if intel spent the money to resureect one of its competetors that gave it a real challange decades ago and had them cathc ther design up and take AMD out for good. Its not like it would be all that hard.

AMD has never had to "Play with the big boys" per say, in there enitre history except intel, and would be wiped out if it had to compete with multipe real competetor coming down on it like intel and other companies have had to deal with in hte past.

FRAg do you own a duel 386 or drool evertime you see a 8086! i do :drool: Ive was around in the glory days man and im a real intel lover as i was back then! INtel had to face its own extinction literally back then before the P1s(and came out smelling like roses) and it has no competition anything near like back then. There flying easy right now and are going kick AMD and every thing short of the kitchens sinks ass whne you least expect it and im going to enjoy everymoment of it 8)

Intel is my first love!

PaintballerEJG · 2004-01-04, 03:10 PM

Originally Posted by Rbstr

The FX5900 get slughtered at dx9 heavy benches by all the radys except the 9200 (and the se's)

umm.. no

Try comparing Halo scores between a 5900 and 9600XT, I will bet $$ that the 5900 wins, since I am part of the gearbox halo forums. Trust me, the 5900 is much better.

Oh, and dont compare HL2 either, that game doesn't exist, and neither do real benchmarks for it.

Rbstr · 2004-01-04, 03:53 PM

SO i guess it's not possible to steal scorce code from a game that doen't exist, or have a trailer of it, or have people run test versions of the game on difffernt cards and use programs to meassure the FPS of them to see wich ones prefrome better at it.

Face it Nvidia screwed up when it came to DX9 games, and cheated at 3dmark 03 (there cheating acctualy made a huge difference in scores, while the whole industry does it no one whent to the extent the NV did), the image quality is not as good as an ATI, they suck at DX9, and the driver(especialy the latest ones) can be glitchy as hell.

I bought my card and have sort of regreted it becasue i could have got myself a better card but then i don't becuase it broudened my knowledge of ways to optomize my machine to make up for it and taught me a lesson on what to get next time.

PaintballerEJG · 2004-01-04, 04:36 PM

Originally Posted by Rbstr

Face it Nvidia screwed up when it came to DX9 games, and cheated at 3dmark 03 (there cheating acctualy made a huge difference in scores, while the whole industry does it no one whent to the extent the NV did), the image quality is not as good as an ATI, they suck at DX9, and the driver(especialy the latest ones) can be glitchy as hell.

Again, the HL2 benchmark DOES NOT EXIST. That is unoptimized code, which is very very old. I can guarantee you that those results for HL2 will change dramatically.

Screwed up at DX9 games? I don't see any evidence of that, when I compare benchmarks in Halo if my 5900 compared to a 9800np, they are about the same. This is real-world, about the same sys specs. And my sys has crap 512mb DDR pc2100 ram in it.

3dmark.. dont care, those are synthetic benchmarks, im just saying what real-world performance he could see.

Image quality isn't as good as ATI. Well, in the technical sense its not, but nvidia does has some sharper textures. Also, the ATI cards have 16x AF, while the NVidias have 8x AF. This is because Nvidia's 8x is equal to ATI's 16x.

The new NVidia drivers can be glitchy as hell? I haven't had one problem with that at all, in Halo, CS, Q3, UT2003, bf1942, Raven Shield, Ghost Recon, Deux Ex 2, GTA3; all of these games run perfectly for me. I dunno about other games, but in Halo any ATI card lower than the 9200s will mostly likely have BSOD's and crashes, this is just a bug in the drivers and I realize its not anything to do with the 9600s.

This comes down to 5900 256bit vs 9600XT, and the 5900 will undoubtedly WIN.
Here is a Halo bench... 5900: ~50fps ... 9600XT: ~34fps that would be a DX9 benchmark my friend. Guess what, the 5900 won. Also, the 5900 beats the 9600XT in the aquamark 3 benchmark by about 7000 points. Also uses DX9. Face it, the 5900 is faster than the 9600XT. I should be comparing a 5900 to the 9700pro, because these two cards are about equal. The 9600XT is a mid-range card, while the 5900 is a higher end card. Bottom line.. get the 5900, you wont be let-down.

LoL, i love these debates...

I forgot to say this though: I am not a fanboy of either companies. If ATI have something I wanted, I would buy from them. I actually ordered a 9600XT, but it was backordered. So, I started looking again and found that the 5900 was a much better deal. Either way, if you pay 150-200 bucks for a videocard, you should be just fine. Unless you get ripped off

... just look at some benchmarks and stuff.

***oh, and could someone inform me about the netcode in planetside? Is the firing client-side or server-side? If you had a 200ms ping, would you have to lead the guy or does it automatically compensate for that? I'm stuck with tri-56k :P (168k.. just 3 phonelines bonded together).***

LMAO another edit. The reason you may be unhappy with your 5600 is because that was one of the first-gen FX cards, which totally blew ass for their prices. The 5900 is a new generation of card, with many optimizations in the GPU (and not like those optimizations in 3dmark

)

Fragmatic · 2004-01-04, 05:30 PM

Originally Posted by Ait'al

OCing taken to the limit of cooling is the ultimate qaulity of the chip. manufacturing wise.

And it takes a 64 bit processor form AMD to even match Intels 32 bit. 8p Intel if still finer quality manufacturing as it always has been either way. And i will alway prefer them because it will take a hell of a lot better design for me to like something else better.

And i hope Intel wipes AMD off the market or intel makes there 64 bits in a year or two completly seperatly from AMD designs and wipes them out of bussiness.

Though it would be funny if they did it with a 32 bit chip! Intels not even playing chip wise yet and AMDs already swinging hard 8) so there! I win. or will

What would be realy funny is if intel spent the money to resureect one of its competetors that gave it a real challange decades ago and had them cathc ther design up and take AMD out for good. Its not like it would be all that hard.

AMD has never had to "Play with the big boys" per say, in there enitre history except intel, and would be wiped out if it had to compete with multipe real competetor coming down on it like intel and other companies have had to deal with in hte past.

FRAg do you own a duel 386 or drool evertime you see a 8086! i do :drool: Ive was around in the glory days man and im a real intel lover as i was back then! INtel had to face its own extinction literally back then before the P1s(and came out smelling like roses) and it has no competition anything near like back then. There flying easy right now and are going kick AMD and every thing short of the kitchens sinks ass whne you least expect it and im going to enjoy everymoment of it 8)

Intel is my first love!

You forget young padawan

Without competition, Intel will become the ONLY mainstream CPU manufacurer, no?
You know what that means?
They can set whatever the hell they want pricewise... heck, if it weren't for AMD and their cheap cpu's, we'd be paying $1k per ghz right now, so count yourself lucky. (The other 2 contendors are Transmeta and VIA, but theyre not very big)

Please, get some facts with your posts as well, not some bullshit "Intel tore me a new one and I love them for it!" crap.

I got some old 486 chips lying about, and I comb my hair with a p133 (cause that's all they're good for, pics on request), but that's not the point. Since the introduction of the Athlon, AMD literally kicked Intels arse price and performence wise, a few months after the Athlon XP was introduced, AMD found the limitations of it's Palomino core, and moved to a 0.13� process with the Thoroughbred (enhanced Palomino) and Thoroughbred-B (utilising extra power due to 0.13� process), unfortunately, for once, Intel got the jump on AMD and beat them to it with the Northwood core, which beat AMD. Intel were experimenting with this smaller size before AMD and had the lead.

Trust me, they'll bounce back

Oh wait! They already have! *cough* Athlon 64! *cough cough*

Originally Posted by Ait'al

And it takes a 64 bit processor form AMD to even match Intels 32 bit

I presume this is an Athlon 64 vs a Pentium 4 3.2ghz Extreme Edition? (Which may I add IS 64bit, and was rushed extroadinarily quickly)
The thing is, AMD have been trying out 64bit processor instruction sets for a long time, and know more than Intel do.

Benchmark wise, it goes a little something like this -
Gaming = Athlon 64
Application work = Pentium 4

Either way, AMD have created a CPU that can stand up to the P4ee, and considering it runs 1ghz slower and can perform just as well (give or take a little bit) then I have to say -

BOLLOCKS to you Mr. Intel fanboy

Edit - Pentium Comb!

NoSurrender · 2004-01-04, 05:32 PM

dont get that Asus. Ive read many forums with probelms with that 9600XT.

Squick · 2004-01-04, 08:54 PM

Why are people even thinking about DirectX9 anyways? Cards are not powerful enough to handle pixel shaders on a global level, and vertex shaders are extremely inefficient, the same effect can be made with texture shaders from DX8!

When a big game comes out that is fully using DX9, then I will consider it. Otherwise you are just seeing how cards handle an inefficient way of doing things.

Why would I care how fast my car goes from 0 to 60 with a flat tire compared to your car with a flat tire; I won't be using the car with a flat tire!

Rbstr · 2004-01-04, 08:59 PM

Because DX9 is the thing that games are starting to be made on untill dx10 comes out and it will be the same thing again, also if it does DX9 well the other dx versions run very well.

Squick · 2004-01-04, 09:11 PM

Originally Posted by Rbstr

Because DX9 is the thing that games are starting to be made on untill dx10 comes out and it will be the same thing again, also if it does DX9 well the other dx versions run very well.

But what if that is a year or more down the line? If trends keep up a GeforceFX 5900 or ATI 9800 will easily be 25% slower then current cards.

Rbstr · 2004-01-04, 09:26 PM

yeah, but its also "Look i have the best card out there!" braging rites, and as i said card the do well ad dx9 so well at the other dx versions. I guy said that "if you keep puting off buying a new electronic thing becuase it was gona be cheaper and better next month you will never own another electronic gizmo ever again" (or something to that effect

)

Squick · 2004-01-04, 10:20 PM

I only buy what is necessary though, and I would consider a DX9 card unnecessary right now. That would be like saying bragging about your car because it can run on hydrogen or gas. Thats great, except there are no hydrogen stations around, so you will be paying extra for a feature that you can not use.