Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

If you had $300 to spend??

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
January 26, 2001 1:26:55 AM

If you had between 200 and 300 to spend on a video card to go along with the following what would you buy?
AMD 1.2
256 cas 2
Abits KT7-RAID ( I do plan on running RAID)
creative sound blaster live 5.1
and I think the rest is unimportant.

More about : 300 spend

January 26, 2001 12:40:43 PM

Wait for the NV20 stuff to become mainstream. If you can't wait htat long, pick up a card like mine...it was only 180 on ebay, and it blows the crap outta any gf256 of course...Quake, SOF, Unreal...they all run beautifully full options at 1024 * 768. Save the cash for now, and save towards the next generation on the way...!

Asus A7V / 900 tbird
SBLive X-Gamer
256mb PC133
13.8 WD hd
Leadtek GeForce2 GTS
Related resources
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
January 26, 2001 2:55:11 PM

i agree with the last two posts. Geforce is the way to go. I picked up my leadtech 32mb gf2 gts for $185.00 at macena.com and the card rules. If you want more power i think he has the 64mb too. These cards will kick ass for a long time.
January 26, 2001 6:26:08 PM

If you can spring for $340 I see that www.pricewatch.com lists Geforce 2 Ultras for as low as $339 (Vision Tek). For half that price you can get a Geforce 2 GTS. I don't think a Geforce 2 PRO gets you enough performance for $275.

If you haven't already purchased the system. I recommend a 1 Ghz CPU and spend the extra money on that Ultra.
January 28, 2001 1:53:58 PM

I disagree with you completely, I think the pro is the way to go and the ultra is a waste. Please tell me what can't run on a pro that can run on an ultra? Only time you will even see a diff is using some benchmark program.

A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing!
January 28, 2001 2:42:43 PM

From the benchmarks that I have seen, the ultra can run at 1600x1200 with 32-bit color and obtain acceptable framerates. The pro cannot. If you are only going to run at 1280x1024 then the Pro is good enough (but so is a GTS).

This is the way I see it, spend $161 for a GTS and play at 1280x1024 or spend $339 and play at 1600x1200.
January 28, 2001 2:45:46 PM

good lord who runs at 1600 x 1200? what do you have a 27 inch monitor? Any thing under a 21 inch you would need a magnifying glass to see it.

A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing!
January 28, 2001 2:56:12 PM

Actually, neither. I only have a 15" monitor and consequently only need a Geforce256 SDR to get acceptable framerates. My monitor will do 1600x900 but a magnifying glass wouldn't help much. lol !

In any case, I think a Pro is a little overkill for 1024x768 or 1280x1024 but I suppose, overclocked enough to match a factory Ultra, would work for 1600x1200. Of course, you WOULD need a professional class monitor.
January 29, 2001 5:54:49 AM

Well I have a GF2 Pro and it can OC to 235 core and 475 mem and also I have a 19" FD Trinitron. Still I usually just run 1024x768. You know how hard it is to see your ammo and health in Q3 and SOF at 1600x1200 even on a 19"? By the time you squint down to see it your already DEAD! 1600x1200 gaming isnt all its cracked up to be if the important onscreen info gets so small that its hard to read.
January 29, 2001 6:07:11 AM

Try it on a 15" monitor!

Actually, I think OpenGL still has some maturing to do. Windows has a record of the size of your monitor and wouldn't you think that the OpenGL drivers should use this information to scale the fonts, icons, and windows to a proper size for each individual's monitor and display resolution?

By the way, what kind for framerates do you get in Q3 with your card overclocked and not overclocked at 1600x1200?

<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by phsstpok on 01/29/01 03:10 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
January 29, 2001 6:15:37 AM

A 15", well I cant say that I haved used one of those since probably sometime in 1998. Now that I have my 19" even 17" monitors seem small. A think I would go insane if I had to use a 15" monitor for anything, let alone gaming. As for OpenGl maturing, opengl has been around for a while. I think the font problem is more to do with games not intended to run in 1600x1200 in opengl. Vid cards with enough balls to pull that off have just come around in the last year. Most first person shooters 3d engines are much older then that. Wait for an opengl game that has been developed entirely after 1600x1200 become practically for more gamers and im sure the minor details like onscreen fonts at 1600x1200 will be fixed to make life easier for all. But thats just my own ranting and raving and carrying on!
January 29, 2001 6:32:19 AM

I'm used to it and it is a very good 15" monitor, MAG DX-15T.

As for the other OpenGL stuff, it sounds like you know alot more about it than I. Still, games or drivers, whatever the source of the problem, should be adaptive. Players could be using any resolution. Information windows should not be unreadably small just because the display is at 1280x1024. The fonts should scale up. If they are 20 point at 1024 then they should be so at 1280 and so on.

In any case, thanks.
February 7, 2001 1:01:37 AM

Get a GeForce 2 Pro or whichever one has the 64megs of DDR and doesn't cost an arm and a leg to buy. Take-Out.
!