Just to be clear, my PC is AGP and I do not have the funds for a full upgrade.
Reading "The Best Gaming Graphics Cards for the Money: November 2007", I was focusing my sights on the Radeon HD 2600 XT. I can find a 256MB version for $119 shipped.
But now I see Black Friday Deals for Radeon X1600 PRO 512MB AGP $99.99. Now, this model is 4 levels lower on Tom's Graphics Card Hierarchy Chart, but I am not sure of the impact of the 256 vs 512 memory.
Also, I can find HD2600 Pro with 512MB for maybe 10 dollars more. Again, a few steps lower on the hierarchy chart but twice as much memory.
Usually the lower grade 512MB cards have slower memory GDDR2 not GDDR3 like the 2600xt which is the fasted of the cards you mention. The advance of the bigger memory is only at higher resolutions greater than 1600x1200 when the GPU is powerful enough to utilize it. I would be doubtful that 2600pro or 1600pro are powerful enough.
I would put my choice between 2600xt or 1950GT/PRO
Go HD 2600xt or x1950pro/xt. Memory is not the only thing you should look at when you look for video cards, it is often a misleading number. If you really want 512mb of RAM, then you can look for 1950pro with 512mb.
Both cards should do well in most, if not all games, just don't be expect to max out all your games.
------------------------------ P35-DS3L Rev 2 bios F9C l E8400 @ 3.6Ghz @ 1.232v l OCZ Vendetta 2 /LGA775 Bolt-Thru l 4GB G.Skill 8800PI@1000mhz 4:5 @ 1.87v l WD3200AAKS 320GB l Evga 8800GTS 512 l X-Fi Xtreme Music l Corsair HX520 l Antec Sonata III 500 l Vista32 SP2 l Win7 X64 7600
Reply to kpo6969
Memory has almost no impact on the frames per second a graphics card can pull, and that's why it's not taken into account on the Heiarchy chart.
A 512MB X1600 PRO is still 4 levels lower than a 256MB 2600 XT, plain and simple.
More memory does not equal more speed. More memory allows higher texture settings without a performance penalty... but it won't make a graphics card any faster than it is.
A 1GB X1600 would still be slower than a 128MB 2600 XT.
Hi weinster666
Welcome to the forum,can you let us know what the rest of your system is like ie CPU/Power supply,that way we can recomend cards to suit, i notice some people are saying 1950 pro/xt but i would worry that an older AGP system may not have the juice in the power supply to run these cards.
Mactronix
Memory has almost no impact on the frames per second a graphics card can pull, and that's why it's not taken into account on the Heiarchy chart.
A 512MB X1600 PRO is still 4 levels lower than a 256MB 2600 XT, plain and simple.
More memory does not equal more speed. More memory allows higher texture settings without a performance penalty... but it won't make a graphics card any faster than it is.
A 1GB X1600 would still be slower than a 128MB 2600 XT.
I understand this, but wouldn't a 1950Pro 512mb compare to the 2600XT since it's 2 positions higher in the Heiarchy chart? That's why I suggusted it. Thanks
------------------------------ P35-DS3L Rev 2 bios F9C l E8400 @ 3.6Ghz @ 1.232v l OCZ Vendetta 2 /LGA775 Bolt-Thru l 4GB G.Skill 8800PI@1000mhz 4:5 @ 1.87v l WD3200AAKS 320GB l Evga 8800GTS 512 l X-Fi Xtreme Music l Corsair HX520 l Antec Sonata III 500 l Vista32 SP2 l Win7 X64 7600
Reply to kpo6969
You are about to answer a thread that has been inactive for more than 6 months. If you still wish to proceed, please ensure that your posting is original and does not duplicate or overlap any prior responses to this thread.