Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

HELP! Best card for AGP 4x mobo????????

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
August 16, 2007 12:23:35 PM

Processor: Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 2.80GHz
Mainboard : Intel Corporation D845GEBV2
Total Memory : 2GB DDR-SDRAM
Monitor/Panel : Dell D1025HTX
Adapter : VisionTek RADEON X1300 512MB (Omega 3.8.360)
Hard Disk : ST3320620A (298GB)
CD-ROM/DVD : PLEXTOR DVDR PX-740A
Windows System : Microsoft Windows XP/2002 Professional 5.01.2600 (Service Pack 2)

that's my stats as of right now. im trying to find a new graphics card b/c even in Source i get crappy FPS with the X1300, even though it claims to have 512MB of video ram. i used to have a RADEON 9800 Pro until it started acting weird, then my friend let me borrow this X1300, which in my opinion is actually slower then the 9800 pro. My motherboard supports AGP 4x. i noticed in the sticky for this forum that the best AGP card was the ATI Radeon X1950XT. i can only find this card in 256MB versions...does a 512MB version exist? does it make sense to go down to less video RAM? can someone show me the light here? the only x1950xt i could find on new egg was http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814241049 , i never even heard of GeCube. are they a reliable company? I was taught to buy straight from the manfacture when possible, as i did with my 9800 Pro. The X1300 is a VisionTek i believe. at little help here would be great. wats the best card i can run with my agp 4x mobo? :sol: 

More about : card agp mobo

August 16, 2007 1:08:50 PM

i noticed the ATI RADEON X1950 Pro AGP, not XT, has a 512MB AGP version...still cant find anything above 256MB for the XT...would 512MB out of the Pro be better then 256MB from the XT?
August 16, 2007 1:24:58 PM

Dont worry about video ram. Even 1 gb wont help you with a slow gpu and the rest of the system. The amount of video ram should REALLY be the least of your concern.
I would get a geforce7600gs with passive cooling from assus. They go for around 60-80$.
Related resources
August 16, 2007 1:29:01 PM

Otherwise there are radeon 1950pros for twice the price. They come in 512mb versions.
Anyways, it is always better to get a card with faster memory then with lots of memory (unless it is really small amount of fast memory). 256mb @ 256bit will beat easly 512mb @ 128bit.
August 16, 2007 1:31:18 PM

how does the geforce7600gs compare to the ATI x1950xt?
August 16, 2007 1:59:04 PM

dude, using a 512MB video card with a slow system like that is not going to help. i don't care if you think your system is fast. it's not. also, that "512MB" card is almost guaranteed to be a 128MB card that additionally uses 384MB of system memory as needed. it's something ATI calls hypermemory, and nvidia calls it turbocache. they're horrible technologies. sure, it'll prevent "out-of-memory" errors on games that will push lots of big textures to the card. on the other hand, what kind of framerate are you getting on those games by using a X1300? 5fps? 10fps? 15 max? you need a better GPU, and even the 7600GS is going to blow the X1300 away. that ATI card is a low-end model while the nVidia is a mid-range. i would only bother with something of the 7600GS's power since if you truly have only a AGP4X bus, you likely won't be able to use the full power of a X1950Pro or XT. it won't be able to push enough over a AGP8X bus because of your cpu and ram.

get a mid range card. X1650Pro or a 7600GS should suffice and perform better than your 9800Pro and your X1300 (i've had the 9800, loved that card).

btw, the Source engine does NOT push huge textures to the video card. it is perfectly happy with 256MB cards, and even 128MB cards do not kill its performance. i played HL2 on a 9800Pro 128MB with 1GB system memory and a AMD XP2800+ cpu. it ran at 1600x1200 without a hitch, high settings and all. it runs even nicer on my current 7800GT with 2GB ram and a dual core, but anyway...
August 16, 2007 2:04:44 PM

so because of my 'slow' system im not gonna notice a difference between a 7600GS and a X1950XT on the agp4x bus? i was pretty much decided on the ATI RADEON X1950XT AGP 256MB until u said that...
August 16, 2007 2:07:13 PM

Yea, 7600gs will be your best bet. anything better will be limited by the cpu.
August 16, 2007 2:09:07 PM

even with my 9800 Pro, i'd play at 1024x768 and get like 40ish fps... with the x1300 its in the 20's
August 16, 2007 2:14:52 PM

i thought 2.8GHZ wasn't too shabby....much less a bottleneck
August 16, 2007 2:14:59 PM

btw, calling your system slow is not intended as an insult :-) i ran a similar system until i was lucky enough to get the cash together for a major upgrade to AMD64 dual core.

and yeah, i definitely think you'll be limited by your cpu and the AGP4X bus. even the 7600GS may bump up against that bandwidth limitation; but you will be matching it much more closely to the overall system than you would with the X1950's. a 7600GS should give you a decent while more to game. nvidia had a smash hit with the 6600 series. they were an amazing compromise between price and performance. they continued that with the 7600's, and i'd say on to the 8800GTS 320MB.
August 16, 2007 2:18:58 PM

2.8GHz 32bit NetBurst architecture... it was an awesome chip about 5 years ago. but now it's just that, a 5 year old chip. a lot of the high end gpu's now swamp the cpu's of today. i know if i had gone with a single core a64 3700+, and gotten 7800GTs in SLI, i'd drown the cpu. my x2 3800 (OCed to 2.4) keeps up just fine with my 7800GT, and i'd even say i have a fairly well balance system now.

i remember envying my buddy when he built a 2.8GHz P4 with a 9800Pro and 1GB DDR400.

but yeah, it's 5 year old technology now.
August 16, 2007 2:35:51 PM

im not really paying for this out of pocket (my own money), so theres just to be sure, theres NO advantage of gettin the x1950xt instead of the 7600gs?
August 16, 2007 2:44:02 PM

aevm said:
EVGA 512-A8-N559 GeForce 7600GT 512MB 128-bit GDDR2 AGP Pro 4X/8X Video Card, $125
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130099

I would go for this one. Anything better would be bottlenecked by the AGP 4x and the CPU and might require a new PSU too.


wats the difference between the GS everyone's been recommending and the GT?
August 16, 2007 2:52:34 PM

aevm, i might disagree with getting a 512MB card with 800MHz memory. i'd think you'd get better performance from
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

it has 256MB, which is fine for pretty much all games that can run decently on the 7600 chips. more importantly, the memory is 1400MHz versus that 800MHz. that's around 75% more memory bandwidth right there. the core is 3.6% slower, but i don't think that'll be nearly as important as the memory subsystem.

go for whatever you want, but i'd suggest either of the cards aevm or i suggested. i think what i posted is a better card on the basis of the memory performance, but i could be vastly wrong >.<
a c 143 U Graphics card
August 16, 2007 3:05:33 PM

cpburns said:
aevm, i might disagree with getting a 512MB card with 800MHz memory. i'd think you'd get better performance from
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

it has 256MB, which is fine for pretty much all games that can run decently on the 7600 chips. more importantly, the memory is 1400MHz versus that 800MHz. that's around 75% more memory bandwidth right there. the core is 3.6% slower, but i don't think that'll be nearly as important as the memory subsystem.

go for whatever you want, but i'd suggest either of the cards aevm or i suggested. i think what i posted is a better card on the basis of the memory performance, but i could be vastly wrong >.<


Excellent point. Plus, the one you discovered is cheaper. Am I allowed to change my vote? :) 
a c 143 U Graphics card
August 16, 2007 3:09:21 PM

robd007 said:
edit: got link to work... . is there a GT with the higher memory bandwith that your talking about WITH 512MB of video ram?


You're getting greedy :)  Tell you what, don't spend too much on this upgrade, better save your money for a new build. Get the card cpburns discovered and then don't spend another cent on this PC.

August 16, 2007 3:28:12 PM

i didn't even know 512MB 7600's existed until aevm found one lol. it's the point where, to use that 512MB buffer, you'd need at least a fast 7800 or higher core, and AGP8X at the bare minimum, if not PCIe x16. the doubled buffer (512MB) buys you nothing.

to aevm: i think mine is about $5 more expensive lol, but hey, better performance if i'm not wrong.

i know TheInquirer's reputation just as well as anyone on these forums, but i did think this article was kind of funny. and dare i claim the Inq hit this one dead on? hehe!
http://theinquirer.net/?article=41731

he brings up a good point though, around paragraphs 3 and 4. this is basically what i'm saying. and i'm fairly certain that even the 8600 series (pieces of crap) wouldn't even use 512MB.

oh yeah, and the 8600 runs on a PCIe x16 bus that can actually deliver the textures fast enough to usefully full that 512MB buffer. the AGP4X bus comes nowhere close to filling it. you're pumping 1GB/s through that max. well, hope i've helped without being a jerk O:-)
August 16, 2007 3:32:26 PM

faster memory > more memory :) 
August 16, 2007 3:32:56 PM

while i'm here, let me hijack this temporarily. since the switch to the new forum design, i cannot figure out how to create a signature or other means to display my epeen, aka system config :-)

can someone enlighten me?
a c 143 U Graphics card
August 16, 2007 3:48:56 PM

cpburns said:

to aevm: i think mine is about $5 more expensive lol, but hey, better performance if i'm not wrong.

Yours has a mail rebate, it ends up $15 less.


Signature: click Profile, then Forum Related Info, then type in the Signature section.
August 16, 2007 3:57:54 PM

Another vote for the 7600 GT 256mb.

By the way, that 7600 with 800Mhz memory isn't really a GT... even though it's called one. It's a GS with a faster core. Real 7600 GTs should be running GDDR3 memory at 1400 Mhz effective.

On a side note, I've tested the 7600 GT and X1950 PRO at AGP 4x, 8x, and PCIe. It made no notable difference.

If you want to buy an AGP X1950 PRO, it might be worth it on specific titles like Oblivion... but alot of titles will be CPU-bottlenecked with a 2.8.
August 16, 2007 3:59:58 PM

sweet :-) thank you! epeenz awayyyyy!
August 16, 2007 4:01:37 PM

cleeve said:
Another vote for the 7600 GT 256mb.

By the way, that 7600 with 800Mhz memory isn't really a GT... even though it's called one. Real 7600 GTs should be running GDDR3 memory at 1400 Mhz effective.

On a side note, I've tested the 7600 GT and X1950 PRO at AGP 4x, 8x, and PCIe. It made no notable difference.

If you want to buy an AGP X1950 PRO, it might be worth it on specific titles like Oblivion... but alot of titles will be CPU-bottlenecked with a 2.8.


if this is true, why can't i find a 7600 GT with GDDR3 and 512MB video memory?
August 16, 2007 4:05:27 PM

robd007 said:
if this is true, why can't i find a 7600 GT with GDDR3 and 512MB video memory?


Because they probably don't bother to make any. The extra memory is wasted on a 7600.

7600 GT reference speeds are 560 core / 1400 Mhz memory

7600 GS reference speeds are 400 core / 800 memory

They have 512 MB cards only to fool people who don't understand that 512 offers no performance benefit in this GPU class, and to sucker them in to paying more for a worse-performing card with cheap DDR2 memory in it...
August 16, 2007 4:29:03 PM

if you want a 512MB card, get a card with a gpu that can use that memory. and if you're getting a card that can use 512MB buffer, get a computer that won't bottleneck the gpu. i'd be happy to buy one of the 8800 cards with 640 or 768MB of memory... because i game at 1600x1200. but if i bought one, i'd need to upgrade my cpu, memory, and mobo; otherwise they'd bottleneck the gpu. and i have a 7800GT.

with a better system than what you run, i don't have a use for a 512MB card. i can run Quake4 at ultra details at 1600x1200 without too much trouble. i can run Oblivion at 1280x1024 at medium details. these games want a faster gpu, and only if i got a faster gpu would i consider buying a 512MB+ card.

people recommend the 320MB 8800GTS to those who game only at 1280x1024 or lower. they recommend the 640MB 8800GTS to those who run 1600x1200 or higher, and for extreme resolutions like 2560x1600 they recommend the 768MB 8800GTX in SLI. they do this because at those resolutions you NEED that memory.

if you game at 1600x1200, and you can do so on a 2.8GHz P4, you're not playing the newest games. you mentioned Source engine, and no, it doesn't really crave the taste of 512MB of video ram. if you're using that system, you're likely playing at 1280x1024 or lower. if you are, you certainly don't need a 512MB video card.

it's a catch 22. if you play at high resolutions, you need the bigger 512MB+ cards. if you get those cards, you need a better system. if you got a better system, you would have at least AGP8X if not PCIe x16 on the board. if you ran really high resolutions that could USE the 512MB card, those busses would pay off. don't bother getting a 512MB card on a AGP4X bus. don't bother getting a gpu that can use the 512MB (7900's, 8800's, 7950's, x1900's, x1950's, hd2900's). if you're obsessed with the cool number 512MB, there's nothing i can suggest except to leave it be. or upgrade your entire system.

i can't imagine you have the money to do a full upgrade, otherwise you wouldn't be asking about a card for a AGP4X system. match the card to the system. a 256MB 7600GT like the one i linked is a good bet. perhaps the X1650XT would also do the job (not the pro), but i'm not sure of the costs of that.
August 16, 2007 5:11:49 PM

well the X1650XT seems to be a bit faster then the geforce 7600 GT, but the real question now is that gonna be over doing the agp 4x, aka will it be faster for ME?
August 16, 2007 5:22:27 PM

Before considering the X1650XT check the power requirements of the card against what your PSU can put out on the 12V rail(s).

The 7600GT does get edged out by the X1650XT, but the 7600GT is a more power efficient card and the chances of it playing along nicely with your current PSU are better than that of the X1650XT's.

I wouldn't worry about either card running in a 4X slot.

Edited for clarity.
a c 143 U Graphics card
August 16, 2007 5:55:58 PM

I saw a side-by-side comparison a few weeks ago. The same scene from Oblivion was rendered with a 7600GS and with an X1650Pro. Both were getting about the same fps (weak, of course), but the interesting part was that the 7600GS image looked much nicer. That is, it had some eye-candy options that were not available with the x1650 and they made a lot of difference. For example with the 7600 GS you could see the sun reflected in the water, and some shadows...
a b U Graphics card
August 16, 2007 6:09:25 PM

cpburns said:
dude, using a 512MB video card with a slow system like that is not going to help.


Depends on the card and the app and settings really. Some situations it would help, others it definitely wouldn't. But not having to swap out textures and such would help greatly, and it may still be bottleneck by the system, but not all apps are CPU bound.

Quote:
also, that "512MB" card is almost guaranteed to be a 128MB card that additionally uses 384MB of system memory as needed. it's something ATI calls hypermemory, and nvidia calls it turbocache. they're horrible technologies.


Neither of which are available on AGP cards.
And obviously you don't understand what they do if you think theyre horrible.
I'd take a 128MB card with the option of HM/TC over the same card with 128MB an no such option. People's confusion over it's uses and benifits is what's horrible.

Quote:
i would only bother with something of the 7600GS's power since if you truly have only a AGP4X bus, you likely won't be able to use the full power of a X1950Pro or XT. it won't be able to push enough over a AGP8X bus because of your cpu and ram.


Got some evidence of that? And if AGP bus is the barrier wouldn't larger on board VRAM mean less need to communicate with the host? Your statement contradicts itself. The X1950Pro will destroy the GF7600GS in pretty much any game out there, so depending on what the price difference is it could very easily be worth it. Especially at this point I'd be more concerned about pixel power than just bus width. Sure the X1950Pro will likely perform further away from it's potential than the GF7600GS and X1650, but it will still blow the doors off those two when the app needs heavy shader power. And for a game like CS:S it's not going to stress the bus as much anyways, so I doubt the drawback of 4X AGP would be as severe as many other games.
a b U Graphics card
August 16, 2007 6:17:12 PM

aevm said:
I saw a side-by-side comparison a few weeks ago. The same scene from Oblivion was rendered with a 7600GS and with an X1650Pro. Both were getting about the same fps (weak, of course), but the interesting part was that the 7600GS image looked much nicer. That is, it had some eye-candy options that were not available with the x1650 and they made a lot of difference. For example with the 7600 GS you could see the sun reflected in the water, and some shadows...


There aren't features in Oblivion that the GF7600 can render that the X1650 can't, but the inverse is not the case, there are some things that the X1650 can do that the GF7600GS cannot (without nVidia or Bethesda changing something).

It sounds to me like someone didn't put them on the same settings, which explains the difference you saw.
While the GF7600GS and X1650Pro are close in many things, in Oblivion the GF7600GS is well behind in features and performance, there's games like that for both architectures, but Oblivion definitely favours the X1K series.
a b U Graphics card
August 16, 2007 6:25:38 PM

robd007 said:
i thought i had it figured out, get the GeForce 7600GT (with the DDR3) but, just checked this out, and since Anoobis said not i shouldnt worry about running it in a 4x slot, im starting to wonder......



This should answer most of your questions (other than if your MoBo is one of the ones that had issues running newer cards in the 4X slot), it has lotsa tests, lotsa settings, and the power draw of many of the cards you could buy;

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/radeon-x1650xt.html

Power consumption will be similar to the PCIe versions, just delivered differently (extra connectors if needed). The performance will be close as well, so if the card you're looking at is under the PCIe spec then account for that in your comparison, usually they scale similarly.
August 16, 2007 6:54:24 PM

aevm said:
I saw a side-by-side comparison a few weeks ago. The same scene from Oblivion was rendered with a 7600GS and with an X1650Pro. Both were getting about the same fps (weak, of course), but the interesting part was that the 7600GS image looked much nicer. That is, it had some eye-candy options that were not available with the x1650 and they made a lot of difference. For example with the 7600 GS you could see the sun reflected in the water, and some shadows...


Hrmh? That shouldn't be the case. The 7600 and X1650 both support SM 3.0. Plus, the Oblivion engine notably favors the X1650 series over the 7600 series as far as I've seen.

Do you have a link? I'd be interested in seeing that.
August 16, 2007 7:02:37 PM

well now u guys seem to be saying there might be some benafits from having a x1950xt in a 4xagp slot...i think i might just go with that, i just wonder if my system can handle the power. how would i determine that? i got a 400W supply
a c 143 U Graphics card
August 16, 2007 7:11:10 PM

cleeve said:
Hrmh? That shouldn't be the case. The 7600 and X1650 both support SM 3.0. Plus, the Oblivion engine notably favors the X1650 series over the 7600 series as far as I've seen.

Do you have a link? I'd be interested in seeing that.


I'm looking for it. It's been a while, it was a week or two before the Intel price cuts in July. I was Googling reviews of X1650 because that card was in a $1000 Q6600 PC at FutureShop and I was tempted.

a c 143 U Graphics card
August 16, 2007 7:15:12 PM

Yay, got it.

http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/image.html?image=MTE2MTI3OTc5OUVZclQ0Qm51RTBfM183X2wucG5n.

I was lying, it was the 7600GT, not the 7600GS. :lol: 

http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTIwMywzLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==

Edit: you guys are right, the 7600GS doesn't have any specific advantages over the x1650Pro. The 7600GT does though, they're listed at that second URL above. Personally I like that second image more, but I guess it's a matter of taste. I could live with either.
August 16, 2007 7:23:31 PM

robd007 said:
well now u guys seem to be saying there might be some benafits from having a x1950xt in a 4xagp slot...i think i might just go with that, i just wonder if my system can handle the power. how would i determine that? i got a 400W supply


Here's a review showing the 7600 GT vs the X1950 PRO on an Athlon XP 2500+... should be similar to what you'd see on your 2.8:

http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/01/10/agp-platform-ana...

Some titles were CPU bottlenecked and didn't show a difference between the 7600 GT and X1950 PRO (FEAR, X3, Ster Trek: Legacy)

Other titles showed a huge improvement with the X1950 PRO at high resolutions (NFS Carbon, Oblivion, PREY)


The X1950 PRO would use a 400w PSU for sure, if it's a good quality PSU. If it's generic, you might need something a bit more... stable.
August 16, 2007 7:30:50 PM

Ah...

HardOCP benches different cards at different settings. Note that the 7600 GT had reflections and HDR turned on in the settings, where the X1650 PRO and 7600 GS had reflections and HDR turned off...

The 7600 GT had them turned on, hence the visual difference. At the same settings, the screenshots would have been very close.

It's an odd thing that sets HardOCP apart. Instead of benching the speed of the cards, they get all the cards to run at a similar speed by changing settings and then show everyone the settings they use.

It's not really apples to apples, but it's interesting. At any rate, the 7600 GT is a better card than the X1650 PRO or 7600 GS. But if you look at the framerates, the X1650 PRO was a tad faster than the 7600 GS at similar settings.

On a side note, the X1650 XT should be faster than the 7600 GT in Oblivion.
August 16, 2007 7:45:00 PM

cleeve said:
Here's a review showing the 7600 GT vs the X1950 PRO on an Athlon XP 2500+... should be similar to what you'd see on your 2.8:

http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/01/10/agp-platform-ana...

Some titles were CPU bottlenecked and didn't show a difference between the 7600 GT and X1950 PRO (FEAR, X3, Ster Trek: Legacy)

Other titles showed a huge improvement with the X1950 PRO at high resolutions (NFS Carbon, Oblivion, PREY)


The X1950 PRO would use a 400w PSU for sure, if it's a good quality PSU. If it's generic, you might need something a bit more... stable.


thanks for that link, that article is like hand tailored to what were looking for... so i guess it basically comes down to the specific game and if it CPU-bottlenecked or not....
a b U Graphics card
August 16, 2007 8:20:46 PM

aevm said:
Yay, got it....


That explains it, a [H]ard|OCP review. :sarcastic: 

Why they didn't use AF with it's near zero penalty in Oblivion is ridiculous. :heink: 


a c 143 U Graphics card
August 16, 2007 8:27:28 PM

So, then, [H]ard|OCP is some sort of Inquirer, to be taken with a large amount of salt? :ouch: 
August 16, 2007 8:40:43 PM

aevm said:
So, then, [H]ard|OCP is some sort of Inquirer, to be taken with a large amount of salt? :ouch: 


I wouldn't go that far. But you have to really understand the HardOCP method to get good info out of them.

You're not seeing raw card vs. card performance in their reviews, but you can find some useful info as far as what graphic settings a card can handle for a given game (although their acceptable levels of performance are arbitrary).
August 16, 2007 9:31:31 PM

Figures, it's [H]ard|OCP.

They love ATI.[/dripping with sarcasm...dripping]
August 16, 2007 10:57:54 PM

Hard[OCP] is a very biased site. They favor nVidia and will go to great lengths to prove nVidia is better than ATI. I say this with no bitterness because there's not a bit of fanboyism to me. I have had excellent ATI cards and I have had excellent nVidia cards. I only wonder how their view of AMD will be now that ATI is part of them. Granted, AMD needs to get its act together to give Intel some actual competition again. I suppose this is Intel's turn though. AMD stormed the fort back in 2003 and took the crown with AMD64. Now Intel has taken it back again for now. It will take them a while, but AMD will recover - even if it means Intel loaning them money under the table so as to still have a real x86 competitor, avoiding monopoly charges in the x86 market (similar to Microsoft towards Apple in the mid-90's).
August 17, 2007 9:37:12 AM

this is a bit off topic but i figured id ask anyway.... do i have any room upgrading my CPU from the P4 2.8? my motherboard supports 'µPGA478 socket with a 400/533 MHz system bus' i looked on pricewatch, they have P4 3.4Ghz processors but they all have 800MHZ buses. is there an adapter or something out there for the µPGA478 socket that allows it to run new processors? actually i see a P4 3.2Ghz with a 533MHZ FSB but its $274. yikes. any ideas?
August 17, 2007 1:29:30 PM

get a new computer instead. really.
!