Graphics Card Suggestions...

MilitantB0B · 2003-12-31, 02:01 PM

Ok, some of you may have seen my thread explaining my problem, some have not, but in short DirectX 9 seems to have taken a dump on my existing graphics card. I attempted to fix the problem by reverting to directX 8 with... err... Interesting results and a fresh install of windows.

Ok, now that the history is out of the way, on to my question.

What graphics card would you reccomend for gamming in the $150-$200 dollar range. I am not interested in overclocking and whould like to spend less if possible (duh

)

By the by, my computer specs are as follows:
CPU AMD|2200+
DDRAM 512M|DDR333 PC-2700
VGAABIT|SiluroGF4 TI4200-8X 128OTES (that is the one that was raped by DirectX 9)

Thanks in advance.

dscytherulez · 2003-12-31, 02:09 PM

$150-$200? Radeon 9600 XT.

Rbstr · 2003-12-31, 03:27 PM

Originally Posted by dscytherulez

$150-$200? Radeon 9600 XT.

Yeah the 5700 ultra is looking good too

dscytherulez · 2003-12-31, 04:28 PM

Booo! Down with NVIDIA! lol

Ait'al · 2003-12-31, 05:48 PM

DOWN WITH AMD LOVERS!!!

dscytherulez · 2003-12-31, 07:16 PM

Originally Posted by Ait'al

DOWN WITH AMD LOVERS!!!

Heh, overclock your Intel and tell me how far you get!

Edit: w/o liquid nitrogen BTW

Ait'al · 2003-12-31, 07:30 PM

They liquid nitrogen cooled the AMD 64FX too and only got 2.8 from a 2.2 and intel got a 5.25 from a 3.2. Its the ultimate say in the qaulity of hte chip. because with adequite cooling it can go alot farther. One day we may easily have something capable of getting near the cooling of liquid nitrogen withough the liquid nitrogen. Especially if companies decided to invest in making hte technology available. 8) It just tells you who put mroe into assuring how well there chip works id rather have a 3.2 that they made capable of doing 5.25+ then a 2.2 whatever only capable of doing 2.8. It just reminds me of the reason i used to like Intell 8) And i was refering maingly to nvidia as the AMD lover

but i meant all there users to

not that im some big fan of ATI or anyone else.

Im a diehard fan of only three things i can think of. And thats Intell Creative works and Western Digital! Well Hardware wise anyway. I may have been a fan of some older stuff back inhte day but i cant remember anything back then all that well at the moment.

Squick · 2003-12-31, 07:39 PM

I would check out www.tomshardware.com and www.anandtech.com for some (semi)non-biased reviews of video cards. I got my GeforceFX5900 for ~$250 and I have been extremely happy with it...

Rbstr · 2004-01-01, 02:55 AM

Intel chips are far more overclockable man, expecialy the 2.8's and 3's you can get 3.5 or mabee even four out of them if you water cool and have stable memory.

Get a 9600 XT its the best midrange card for preformance and price.

martyr · 2004-01-01, 03:00 AM

i have the FX5900 from nivida. it's ok, i guess, but my performance still kinda blows, even with 2gb ram, a clean xp pro install, and two (2) 2.4ghz xeons, HT off.

Daleon · 2004-01-01, 10:40 AM

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 and buy one.

Biohazzard56 · 2004-01-01, 10:51 AM

Radeon 9600XT with the Overdrive Built in Overclocking feature, that automatically raises clock and memory speeds.

I Hate Pants · 2004-01-01, 11:06 AM

Originally Posted by Biohazzard56

Radeon 9600XT with the Overdrive Built in Overclocking feature, that automatically raises clock and memory speeds.

I have that enabled on my 9600xt. It doesn't really make a difference. Atleast not a very noticable difference. And yeah. Go for the 9600xt.

Fragmatic · 2004-01-01, 11:21 AM

Ait'al... how can you be a diehard fan of Intel if you can't even spell it?

If you are referring to the 2 articles in Toms Hardware Guide... there are a few things...

1. Even though the P4 got to 5.25Ghz, it was nowhere near stable.

2. They did NOT cool the Athlon64 with liquid nitrogen, they used a compressor, which if you looked at the temps, were much higher (oh, only ~170�c higher)

3. The bios for that motherboard was limited, its pretty much a select speed and go, and that was the highest speed selectable. Don't forget that the processor architecture is different, and as such it performs higher than normal (IE - The Athlon64 FX runs at 2.2Ghz, but outperforms a 3.2ghz P4) Future released motherboards will be more suitable for overclockers.

4. The Athlon remained stable as a rock! So there!!!!!

The articles in question -
http://www17.tomshardware.com/cpu/20031230/ - P4
http://www17.tomshardware.com/cpu/20031021/ - Athlon64 FX

NoSurrender · 2004-01-03, 02:04 AM

Wow aital just got 0wn3d. damn nice work frag.