graphics/video card

[unlicensed]

which would be the better to update, mainly to have games run better. and what would some good choices be.

trying to get my christmas list done early.

[pdV6]

Graphics card = Video card

what are you asking?

[unlicensed]

im kinda of a feckin moron at times. todays one of those days. well if they are the same thing or not i wanna upgrade one of em to something better.


bah, ignore the video card part. what would be a good graphics card for games. close to top of the line one since it aint my money its being bought with.

>> Edited by unlicensed on Thursday 27th November 16:35

[pdV6]

What kind of games do you / will you play and what spec PC is it going into?

[liszt]

The top of the range one is probably a Radeon 9800 or a Gforce FX5900 with 256 MB of on board memory.

Look to pay about £350 ($595) in the UK

[unlicensed]

lots of online fps games. and also hopefully ff11 or other mmorpg's.

what spec? what u mean. im having a numpty day today.

[liszt]

pdV6 said:

Graphics card = Video card what are you asking?

Being pedantic could be a separate video capture card but I think you are right in this context

[cacatous]

Have a wander down to www.overclockers.co.uk

Lots of info on the latest and best. My money would be on a Radeon 9800XT.

[manek]

V expensive though. Could get a Radeon 9600 for much less without losing too much performance. You might want to look for one with a TV tuner in it too.

[JonRB]

Sorry to hijack the thread, but I have a similar question.

My laptop is a 2.66 Ghz P4 with 512Mb RAM and an nVidia GeForce 4 420 Go
My desktop is a 1.4 Ghz P4 with 640Mb RAM and an nVidia RIVA TNT2 64 Pro.

The laptop will play C&C Generals fine, but on the desktop it runs like a dog and is unplayable.

Presumably a more modern graphics card will enable the desktop to play it as well as the laptop, despite the 1.26 GHz clock-speed deficit?

If so, does anyone have any recommendations? Would the cheaper Radeons on overclockers be sufficient?

>> Edited by JonRB on Friday 28th November 17:35

[WildfireS3]

If you by a hot video card and run it on a slow system, you will bottle neck the graphics card. For example a Radeon 9600 may only perform 1fps slower than a 9800, on a slow system, but on an up to date system be maybe 30fps faster.

Bear this in mind.

[NJGSX96]

A higher-end graphics card will have more than a 1fps edge. In fact, installed in any system, PIII800 and higher it will make all games playable that were otherwise unplayable on say a TNT2 board. However, if you upgraded the PC as well, the performance increase in your games will be 10x better.

I am not a big ATI fan at all so I recommend any offering from nvidia. The FX Ultra boards are the way to go... FX 5600/5700/5900/5950 Ultra but a plain jane 5900 or 5950 is killer as well. If you look around, good deals can be found. One of my buddies just bought an FX5900 (not Ultra) for $199 after rebates from CompUSA. Another got the 5600 Ultra for $149 after rebates from CompUSA. I have a GeForce4 Ti4200 in my AMD 1600+ rig and it plays any game I have thrown at it in full res/highest quality.

>> Edited by NJGSX96 on Friday 28th November 20:05

[judas]

Check that your motherboard will support newer graphics cards. Most of these, especially high end ones, run at AGPx8. If you have an older motherboard it may only support AGP x 4, or even lower! An AGPx4 slot will not physically accept an AGPx8 card.

>> Edited by judas on Saturday 29th November 16:39

[JonRB]

judas said:

An AGPx4 slot will not physically accept an AGPx8 card.

That's confused me, because the Asus cards at Overclockers say "AGP8X/4X/2X Bus Standard".

Edit: Having done a bit more research, I can see that "AGP8X/4X/2X" refers to the required slot - ie. able to accept 8X cards. Since my slot only accepts 4X I need to find a 4X card, eg. nVidia GeForce 4 MX series.

>> Edited by JonRB on Saturday 29th November 22:31

[squirrelz]

It's also not quite correct.

A card that is 8x only will not go in a 4x slot, but all the 8x cards that I've seen also support 4x.

They generally won't go in a 2x slot though.

If you see a card you like the look/price of, then check the manufacturer's website to see if it supports the AGP slot you have.

[JonRB]

So when I see a card that says "8X" then it won't fit in my 4X machine? But if one says "2X/4X/8X" then it will fit?

[JonRB]

NJGSX96 said:

I am not a big ATI fan at all so I recommend any offering from nvidia. The FX Ultra boards are the way to go.

I've been doing quite a bit of research over the past few days and all the reviews and comparisons I've seen have shown the nVidia FX series really struggling against the Radeons. In the mid-range, where my budget is, the FX5600 Ultra is very much inferior against the Radeon 9600 Pro, and even the new FX5700 Ultra is struggling against it.

I still haven't made a purchasing decision yet, but the Radeons do seem to have the edge. Having said that the nVidea cards seem to have more gizmos like video-in and on-board MPEG-2 decoders, so I don't know which way to jump.

[NJGSX96]

JonRB said:

NJGSX96 said: I am not a big ATI fan at all so I recommend any offering from nvidia. The FX Ultra boards are the way to go. I've been doing quite a bit of research over the past few days and all the reviews and comparisons I've seen have shown the nVidia FX series really struggling against the Radeons. In the mid-range, where my budget is, the FX5600 Ultra is very much inferior against the Radeon 9600 Pro, and even the new FX5700 Ultra is struggling against it. I still haven't made a purchasing decision yet, but the Radeons do seem to have the edge. Having said that the nVidea cards seem to have more gizmos like video-in and on-board MPEG-2 decoders, so I don't know which way to jump.

The ATI cards do test better than the nVidia cards but if you can only see maybe 30fps in games before no difference can be "seen", what is the point Both cards go off the scales when it comes to fps so you need to go elsewhere. In real world applications of the cards, the nVidia is a better choice. If you want to play games, ATI struggles quiet often with acceptable drivers to prevent crashing and full optimization for the best possible graphics. Dealing with strictly colors of various screens, the nvidia cards provide truer colors than the ATI.

In the end it comes down to which company you prefer or which direction friends may steer you. If your testing shows ATI is the way to go, than go with it. The final decision is up to you.

Rich

[JonRB]

Choices, choices.

I don't really have a preference, to be honest, I just got concerned with all those reports of the nVidia FX series struggling against the Radeons.

I guess that whatever I go for will be better than the crappy TNT2 I've got at the moment.

[Plotloss]

They are much of a muchness at every price/performance level. The latest cards contain features that no card uses so it seems folly to me to stay on the bleeding edge of VGA cards.

ATi do seem to have the edge at the moment though...