Help Deciding?

[crazy8tz]

I currently have a "Visiontek GeForce II card with 64MB." Granted, for the little amount of PC gaming that I do, it seems to be sufficient. But, I think it's about time I upgraded. I can't see spending $400 on a Graphics card, so I am looking at the budgetary options available.

Does anyone know how drastic of an improvement the "GeForce FX 5200" card would make over my current GeForce II/64MB?

Does anyone have any other suggestions of graphics cards that would greatly improve my game performance without severely punishing my wallet?

I must admit though, seeing a "Radeon 9700 Pro" in action made me drool!


Thanks Everyone, any input will be greatly appreciated.

 

[cleeve]

The consensus is the Geforce FX 5200 is underpowered. They deliver worse performance than the radeon 8500, and they cost more.

You're better off to go for the Radeon 8500/9100 or 9000/9200 cards. They will deliver better performance and will likely be cheaper.

If you have a little more money, go for a Geforce4 Ti 4200. It shouldn't be much more...

And if you can afford it the best bang for the buck is a Radeon 9500 PRO, but it will be more expensive.

Good luck,

- Cleeve

 

[TheGreatGrapeApe]

Can you wait a coupla months more?

The new 9600pro just came onto the market it is threatening to be the best price/performance card depending on the price of the OEM boards. The retail board is significantly LESS than the 9500pro, but offers a very close level of performance, although slightly less when not overclocked.

Depending on your time frame it could be a good choice, but it is a risk if OEMs don't price much less.

The 8500/9100 is definitely a better choice than the FX5200, and I agree on the other two as alternates.

- You need a licence to buy a gun, but they'll sell anyone a stamp <i>(or internet account)</i> ! <font color=green>RED</font color=green> <font color=red>GREEN</font color=red> :tongue: GA to SK

 

[Spitfire_x86]

Buy 64 MB Radeon 8500LE/9100 instead of GF-FX 5200. All GF-FX cards suck, R8500LE/R9100 is much faster than GF-FX 5200 (non-Ultra) and even faster than GF-FX Ultra

----------------
<b><A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86" target="_new"> My Website</A></b>

<b><A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86/myrig.html" target="_new"> My Rig</A></b>

 

[phial]

agree..

the GFFX5200 is about on par with a GF4MX460.. which is BARELY fast enuff for *some* games nowadays, and WONT be fast enuff 4 months from now


my recommendation:

well sinse you can get a TI4200 for the same price as a GFFX 5200, get either that or a radeon 9100/9200/8500LE. these 3 are essentially the same cards .... the TI4200 is a good bit faster, but also a good bit more money


need some links to stores? where do you live?

-------

<A HREF="http://www.xgr.com" target="_new">XGR-Game Reviews</A>

"You change the channel, and you change our minds..." - System of a Down

 

[crazy8tz]

Thanks for the information. The general consensus amongst gamers appears to be Radeon over GeForce. I've been looking at the Radeon cards on Pricewatch, and there are quite a few in the price range I have been looking for. Though, since the prices generally go up in small increments, each upgrade becomes more and more "tastier" looking.

I have decided that I do indeed want a 128MB card. I have a 64MB card now, so I do at least want to upgrade the amount of Video Memory I have. (It's not just for games, I do computer animation and video design as well)

 

[crazy8tz]

Thanks for the information!

Call me a wuss, but I'm not one for overclocking. I take them for what they are, and that's good enough for me.

I have been watching the price of the 9600 Pro on Pricewatch, and each day the price of it has been dropping little by little. I found the 9500 Pro listed on TCWO.com and believe it or not, it's listed to be more expensive that the 9600 Pro.

Are there any differences in performance when purchasing an ATI All-in-Wonder opposed to purchasing a straight Radeon?

Thanks again for the recommendations. I'm taking it all to heart.

 

[dinkster9]

believe it or not, the extra 64 mb of memory (128 total) has been proven to be worthless or sometimes even slower than the 64mb models when the card is cutrate enough to not even be able to utilize the extra ram. To clarify: cheaper cards that then addon 64megs of ram (as a marketing scheme) do not benifit from that ram.

SO a mx card with 64 or 128 = same performance
BUT (if it was possible) a 9700pro with 64 vs 128, the 128 would definitly enhance performance, because the video card itself is fast enough to send that amount of info.

Don't get caught up with i need the biggest number schemes that all the companies use. usually its not the amount, its the speed that matters

"sixth sick sheik's sixth sheep's sick"
*grabs a stick and places it into the flames; mmmm, smores*
%Think before you act would be a good motto%

 

[crazy8tz]

Hey, thanks for the reply!

I found the Radeon 9500 Pro on TCWO.com, and would you believe that it was more expensive than the 9600 Pro?

Radeon's seem to be the card of choice amongst gamers. I must admit that both the GeForce and Radeon top-of-the-line cards are extremely tempting, but I can't bring myself to purchase a video card at $400. Particularly when I don't play that many games. Though, being a Beta tester for SW:Galaxies has definitely upped the bar on me getting a new card. The game looks amazing with the one I have. I can only imagine what it would look like with a better card.

Well, what's your opinion? I'm looking at pricewatch and they have two cards that caught my eye, based on the recommendations I've gotten.

- GeForce TI 4200 128MB - $119
- Radeon 9100 Pro 128MB - $80

So, out of these two, which would you recommend?

 

[cleeve]

Out of those two cards, the Geforce4 Ti 4200 will perform better. But $39 worth better?

Well, I personally think so... performance with antialiassing enabled will kick the crap out of the 9100.

On a side note:

The Radeon 9500 PRO is actually superior to a Radeon 9600 PRO.
The 9600 was made to be cheaper to produce... That's why it costs less... but it still has very good performance. The 9500 PRO is actually a Radeon 9700 with a neutered memory bus.

 

[crazy8tz]

So, in the event of purchasing a "Ti4200 GeForce 4" card, do you think it would use the full 128MB? Or do you consider it in the category of "Not fast enough to utilize all of the memory?"

Does this also vary based on manufacturer? Do some companies design their cards to make better use of the extended memory than others do?

If you don't mind me asking, what card do you have, and how does it suit you?

 

[crazy8tz]

Phial,

Thanks for the information and the reply.

I live in Bucks County, PA.
Any links you can provide me would be great!

It seems like I'm leaning towards the Ti4200 GF4 128MB, but I'm keeping my options open, and not rushing into this. I simply want the best value for my money, but at the same time, something that when comapred to my current card, will WOW me!

 

[crazy8tz]

I'm glad you posted what you posted. It makes me feel more secure in leaning towards the Ti4200 GF4 128MB. I've seen the Ti4600 GF4 in action and it is SWEEEEEET! But, then again, so is the top-of-the-line Radeon, and correct me if I am wrong, but the Radeon seems to have brighter texturing.

 

[TheGreatGrapeApe]

Actually if gaming is NOT your major concern then the 128 will help you in 2 areas. Multi-monitor AND High res. And then it's really more of a queation of quality. I would say based on your NEEDS (not gaming primarily/exclusively but just occasionally [like my 'work rig' at home]) Then I would sugest the 9100pro with 128mb. In your case the 128mb WILL make a difference if you push it hard enough.
There are also sofmods to push the GF4 to a more Quadro like card and the 9500P to a FireGL Z1 like card, but since you don't like to tweak I wouldn't worry to much about it; Although if you got a friend who IS VERY confident (not just with other people's gear) with tweaking, then it might be your BEST option. <i> BUT IT IS RISKY!</i>
In stock format I would say for your apps you won't see MUCH diff. between the GF4 and the 9100P, and the quality of the 9100s picture is slightly better. But for GAMES the GF4 will dominate.
The main questions are; Do you run dual monitor? Do you run at HIGH res.? IF so, it might be worth upgrading, outside of those two concerns I don't think your current card would be inadequate, and you may wish to wait for a 256mb version of the 9600 or such, I just posted a link to a review on the 256mb version of the FX5600 (which I would MILDLY recommend, but NOT for gaming), the 256mb should allow you to push really HI Res. on 2 monitors AND do some wicked rendering thrown in because of the more powerful GPUs.
That's my 2 frames worth.

- You need a licence to buy a gun, but they'll sell anyone a stamp <i>(or internet account)</i> ! <font color=green>RED</font color=green> <font color=red>GREEN</font color=red> :tongue: GA to SK

 

[Crashman]

The 9100 Pro 128MB is slower than the 9100 Pro 64MB because the 128MB card uses slower memory.

<font color=blue>Watts mean squat if you don't have quality!</font color=blue>

 

[GeneticWeapon]

True.

Pictures of my PC & Me!<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/html/Genetic_Weapon.html" target="_new">http://www.lochel.com/THGC/html/Genetic_Weapon.html</A>
<font color=red>Melb_Angel</font color=red>=<font color=blue>The other white meat!</font color=blue>

 

[phial]

ahaha you replyed to EVERY person saying thanks lol

dont have to be that nice


i live in canada, so i havent the slightes clue wat teh prices are like where you live

but, i imagine the % in differnece wouldbe about teh same... around here, a 9100/8500LE costs about 150bucks. a TI4200 can be found for 200 or more...

i would consider it worth the extra $50 but, no more than 100$ more than a 9100/8500LE because its not 100$ worth faster, if you follow what im saying... *im confused even wat what i wrote, it was a lonngg nite at work*



-------

<A HREF="http://www.xgr.com" target="_new">XGR-Game Reviews</A>

"You change the channel, and you change our minds..." - System of a Down