Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (
More info?)
richardpstanton@yahoo.com (Richard Stanton) wrote in
<87bc8a5f.0406020100.5177c01b@posting.google.com>:
>"Augustus" <tiberius@weeik.com> wrote in message
>news:<vMPuc.11019$ig5.4251@edtnps89>...
>> "Richard Stanton" <richardpstanton@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:87bc8a5f.0405311455.9408b1e@posting.google.com...
>> > Hello all
>> >
>> > I am contemplating upgrading from an nvidia ti4200 but am not sure
>> > what offers the best bang for my buck. Without spending a fortune
>> > can I significantly improve my system's performance? Also, can
>> > anyone explain the advantages of getting an dx9 compatible card?
>>
>> DX9 cards allow to to play DX9 games with all the eye candy visible.
>> IMHO it's not as stunning a difference as DX7 to DX8.1, but some may
>> disagree. Assuming you want a speed increase from your Ti4200 along
>> with DX9 then you only be considering FX5700 Ultra or Radeon 9600XT
>> level and above. Beware of the recent rash of inexpensive Radeon 9800
>> Pro cards. Many of these have 128bit memory and perform lower than a
>> 9600XT. Still OK, but a real 9800 Pro should wallop a 9600XT. Best
>> choice and bang for the buck....FX5900 or a 256bit 9800 Pro.
>
>Thanks for your replies.
>
>So if something is written to use dx9 features then my card won't
>display them at all? I had assumed that it was a similar situation to
>running something in software mode vs hardware mode, ie a compatible
>card would just render the effects more quickly, and as you say, the
>speed increase was what I was looking for. Are there any options
>within the fx5900 range, eg 128/256mb ram and do you think it would be
>appreciably faster than my 4200 or would it be a waste of money?
>
>many thanks
>
>Richard
>
The FX5900XT will already be faster, the FX5900 Non Ultra will be faster
then the FX5900XT and the FX5900 Ultra will be decisively powerfull.
It just depends on howmuch money you have, but the FX5900XT is quite the
sweetspot.