Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Not sure about a videocard

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
July 14, 2008 5:50:19 PM

Hi!
I want to buy a new videocard for my PC, for gaming.
My computer has a Gigabyte GA-945GZM-S2 motherboard and I want to buy XFX GF 8600 GT PCIE 256MB GDDR3 2X DVI-I.
I had in mind another one, but that had PCI-E2 and i wasn't sure about it even more.
I have a 350Wat power supply.
Will this card work for my PC?

More about : videocard

July 14, 2008 7:13:38 PM

8600 gt sucks. for 160 $ u get a top of the line 4850 which can play ANY game on high settings. U need to upgrade ur PSU to a higher W
Just get a http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
only 60 $ and will last for years.
220 $ to totally upgrade ur system instead of muddling around with 8600 garbage
July 14, 2008 7:30:08 PM

Why does it suck?
I dunno, when i t came out everyone was excited.
Also I don't want to spend more on my PC, only 100$.
Look at the motherboard, its not a perfection too, it could have CrossFire support or SLI and then I would like to add a ~1000W power supply :p 
My PC has now 1GB of RAM and a CPU(Pentium D) running at 3.0 GHz.
This computer won't run many games, mostly because the unsupported CPU.
Im not going to run 2x Crysis on my PC, just some of the "newest" games, like COD4, GRID etc.
Actually I have a list of available video cards and this is the best I could find at a price around 100$.
Related resources
a c 143 U Graphics card
July 14, 2008 7:33:03 PM

Normally I'd agree with FugBen, that's the smart thing to do. But, if you look here:

http://www.gigabyte.com.tw/Products/Motherboard/Products_Spec.aspx?ClassValue=Motherboard&ProductID=2603&ProductName=GA-945GZM-S2

you see
Quote:
1 PCI Express x 16 slot (@x4)


That stinks. The HD 4850 will really not work well in a PCI-E 1.1 slot at x4. That's 8 times less than a PCI-E 2 slot at x16.

You could add another $100 or so for a GA-EP43-DS3L to solve the problem. But, then another problem: your current MB is microATX. This means the DS3L might not fit in the case. Also, the HD 4850 might not fit in a small case either, while the 8600GT has a chance.

Yeah, go for the 8600GT.



July 14, 2008 7:46:10 PM

Im more woried about "not fitting in" the "garbage".
Thanks for the opinion!
July 14, 2008 7:47:33 PM

there are alot better cards out there for $100 than a 8600gt. Go with something like a 8800gs, 9600gso, and there is a foxconn 9600gt on newegg for $120.
July 14, 2008 7:49:42 PM

^^ Second the 8600GT.
You change any other components, and you are into a whole new PC. The 8600GT to be honest is a horrible card; and a Pentium D 3.0GHz won't get you too far working with COD4, and brand new games decently. Although they will be playable, I would keep that $100, save up for a bit, sell your current pc for $250 or something, and take the money you saved and buy a new PC. At this point upgradability is going to be difficult to achieve with your current setup. If you want to be able to just play games, at bad framerates for a few months, then get the 8600GT; otherwise save your $$$.

My two cents.
July 14, 2008 7:49:46 PM

get a 4850
July 14, 2008 8:07:15 PM

You could save some cash and get the same performance as the 8600GT would give by buying the Radeon 3650. I'm just saying ;) 
a c 175 U Graphics card
July 14, 2008 8:36:28 PM

Not a bad idea Jusjc. At least then your getting cheap garbage. The cheaper the card now, the more you have to spend later. Wait a second, let me guess wgleet's next post.

Quote:
But I can't get the 3650, thats made by ATI and EVERYONE knows ATI makes junk. My (insert close relative here) had one once, and not only did it fry his entire computer, but it burned down his house to. And haven't you heard of their horrible driver problems?


Let me assure you that AMD cards are just fine, and won't burn your house down. Their drivers are good also, they are even updated more often then Nvidias currently. The 3650 is a good idea for your current computer.
July 15, 2008 9:48:14 AM

Actually I must say that I have a bad experience with Nvidia cards, because 2 out of 3(now is the 3rd) have simply gone up in smoke.
And ATI cards worked fine.
I also have available ASUS HD3650 PCI-E2 256MB DDR3 256BIT.
It has PCI-E2, but as far as I know then PCI-E2 cards will work on a PCI-E x16, just a performance will loose, won't this be too much?
Dunno why it says 256bit, its clearly 128bit.
Some other people also recommended me 3650, maybe should I stick to it?
Jusjc, Im in luck, because Radeon 3650 is only 4$ more then 8600 GT :D 
July 15, 2008 10:06:40 AM

Why consider an 8600gt or a a 3650? Why not the best bang for the buck near a hundred, which is the 3850? The Diamond Viper is $99 right now.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

If you need a new PSU that will last and will run this card, then there are many at Newegg with rebates by Antec, Corsair, Thermaltake which have enough amps on the 12 volt rail to run cards more powerful than the 3850, so you'd run under load for more stability.

You can get an Antec Earthwatts 430 for $69 or a 500 for $89. As long as your case can take a standard PSU (i.e. it isn't an old mutant Dell or something similar), then you should upgrade to a decent PSU and get a good card besides.

I admit, I went 3650 for my wife's PC as a stopgap to replace an X1650 Pro when I upgraded her motherboard and CPU (plan on getting a 4850 later), but I wish the 3850 was so inexpensive just a couple of months ago.

July 15, 2008 5:09:32 PM

Well like I said that I don't want to spend money on PC more then just a new video card.
Im just wondering about 2.0 PCIE.
I just read that a PCIE-2 card will work on my motherboard(it has a older PCIE), but how much will I loose?
Will it still be at 128-bit and 256MB or that will change? Maybe I should better get a card for PCI-E slot?
July 16, 2008 12:35:21 AM

With your PCIe 1.1 slot at 4x depending on the card you are getting you can lose quite alot of proformance (High end cards up to half)

PS. I got a HD 3850 and its great, don't know what all the fuss is about Nividia is better then ATI.
July 16, 2008 7:55:51 AM

My motherboard ir rev 3.9 actually: http://www.gigabyte.com.tw/Products/Motherboard/Product...
I put in a test card that is a Inno3D 7600 GS 256MB 128-bit PCIE 16 DUAL DVI and it runs fine, even it says that this card is running great! No lags at games and I can run games that I needed to run.
If the perfomance will be like this with that card with PCIE2, then its ok to loose that much performance!
Currently the card is working @ 21.9 GB/s with PCI Express 1.0 x16 @ x4
a c 175 U Graphics card
July 16, 2008 1:48:19 PM

Darkknight512 said:


PS. I got a HD 3850 and its great, don't know what all the fuss is about Nividia is better then ATI.


Slight history lesson then. Back in the day there were two main GPU makers. 3dfx and Nvidia. ATI existed, but they pretty much made cheap OEM stuff. 3dfx and Nvidia battled for the top end of the spectrum. As I hope we all know, Nvidia managed to buy out 3dfx, leaving them with the performance crown. Even the 7000 and 8000 series for ATI were not enough of a performance leap for ATI to get them near the top. Seeing as Nvidia bought the previous top competitor, and ATI couldn't make anything "great", people considered Nvidia the best. Its hard for people to think good of you when for years you made cheap OEM cards and bottom end card compared to the competition.

If AMD can continue to make good card in ATIs name, perhaps in time people will give them the credit they deserve. The 9700pro was one of the best. The x1950 was also one of the best series of cards ever. If they can keep going, and the old "fogies" shut up about the past, then perhaps AMD/ATI won't be talked bad about as much as they are.

LOL, I just realized something. 9700/9800 good, x800s not so much. x1900/x1950 good, 2xxx/3xxx not so much. 4xxx good, does this mean the 5xxx not so much? I guess greatness for AMD/ATI skips a generation.

July 16, 2008 2:25:41 PM

4745454b said:
LOL, I just realized something. 9700/9800 good, x800s not so much. x1900/x1950 good, 2xxx/3xxx not so much. 4xxx good, does this mean the 5xxx not so much? I guess greatness for AMD/ATI skips a generation.


I think both makers seem to go back and forth between generations. Haven't been around for the entire lineups (not old enough for that), but I think Nvidia went a little something like this...

GF 5xxx - Flop
GF 6xxx - Great
GF 7xxx - Slightly better
GF 8xxx - Excellent
GF 9xxx - Slightly better
GF GT2xx - Slightly better

Ok so Nvidia kinda screwed up twice this time around, but you could probably lump the 9xxx and the GT2xx series together since they both came out so close to one another and so quickly.
a c 175 U Graphics card
July 16, 2008 11:16:38 PM

The 5xxx was bad. Horrible, etc. The 6xxx series was great, put them back on top. (mostly) The 7xxx series was slightly better then the 6xxx, but I wouldn't call them good seeing as they were beat by the x1800, x1900, x1950. The 8xxx was excellent, but the 9xxx series wasn't better. There are really only two 9xxx cards that came out. (performance/mainstream cards anyways.) The 9600GT, and the 9800GTX. While the 9600GT was better then the 8600GT, it wasn't a great success against other cards in its price range. The 9800GTX isn't better then the 8800ultra, which could beat it quite nicely. (You can ignore most of the 9600GSOs, they are simply a re-badged 8800GS.)

Its a little early to look at the GTX2xx series. They don't appear to be great cards, but anything could still happen. (GTX285 anyone?) I hadn't thought about the success/failure of the cards being dependent on who has the top cards at the time. It gets a little fuzzy at times, but your idea does also seem to pan out.
!