i was wonderin what all of u think is as the best pci video card today. the only ones i notice that come in pci is the radeon 7500, geforce4 mx 420, and geforce4 mx440. are there any others i dont kno about? what one do u think is the best for PCI
Ummm, if your serious about getting a PCI card you might aswell go out and buy a PCI TNT card, because you wont see any difference between that and a Geforce 4 with PCI. PCI has a really low bandwidth, so it cant transfer anyway near as much as an AGP card, the PCI bus becomes a bottleneck at about the TNT2 level, so you might aswell get one of these for a much lower price. IMO, you would be better off getting a new mobo with AGP support, and then a good AGP card (usually cheaper than the PCI version anyway). This is the problem I had, I had a mobo with built in i740 graphics (really shite), I then upgraded to a PCI GF2 GTS, no improvement whatsoever. So I went from TNT level to GF2 with no improvement, I was really pissed. Thats when I bought my AGP card, its cool :O
My sig's faster than yours, and it overclocks better too....
My sig's faster than yours, and it overclocks better too....
- Dec 31, 2007
- 48,594
- 91
- 66,190
The best for PCI? LOL...
I was playing around with an old i810 board/onboard graphics. I added a TNT PCI card and saw a marginal improvement. So I went out and got a Radeon...and it was a waste of money, little to no improvement.
PCI has only 1/8 the bandwidth of AGP4x. And because it shares that bandwidth with other PCI devices, including the hard drive controller, you're luck to even get half of the available bandwidth to the graphics card. So now your down to 1/16 the bandwidth of AGP4x. You can see now where a very weak onboard AGP video device might outperform a top of the line PCI video card. Unless you don't understand how small 1/16th really is. Go buy a medium pizza and have them slice it into 16-slices. Eat one slice and give the rest to someone else. In about 15 minutes when you're really hungry, you'll understand how the top of the line PCI card "feels".
<font color=blue>You're posting in a forum with class. It may be third class, but it's still class!</font color=blue>
I was playing around with an old i810 board/onboard graphics. I added a TNT PCI card and saw a marginal improvement. So I went out and got a Radeon...and it was a waste of money, little to no improvement.
PCI has only 1/8 the bandwidth of AGP4x. And because it shares that bandwidth with other PCI devices, including the hard drive controller, you're luck to even get half of the available bandwidth to the graphics card. So now your down to 1/16 the bandwidth of AGP4x. You can see now where a very weak onboard AGP video device might outperform a top of the line PCI video card. Unless you don't understand how small 1/16th really is. Go buy a medium pizza and have them slice it into 16-slices. Eat one slice and give the rest to someone else. In about 15 minutes when you're really hungry, you'll understand how the top of the line PCI card "feels".
<font color=blue>You're posting in a forum with class. It may be third class, but it's still class!</font color=blue>
read this
http://guru3d.com/review/guillemot/3dprophetii-mx-pci/
i was just readin this and i think u r wrong or u got a really crappie radeon card. from this benchmark i see that the geforce2mx pci is not that far behind a geforce2mx agp. so if u sayin that the radeon pci is no faster than a tnt pci, does that mean that a geforce2mx agp is SLIGHTLY as a tnt pci (remember that the geforce2mx pci isnt 2 behind the geforce2mx agp)?
http://guru3d.com/review/guillemot/3dprophetii-mx-pci/
i was just readin this and i think u r wrong or u got a really crappie radeon card. from this benchmark i see that the geforce2mx pci is not that far behind a geforce2mx agp. so if u sayin that the radeon pci is no faster than a tnt pci, does that mean that a geforce2mx agp is SLIGHTLY as a tnt pci (remember that the geforce2mx pci isnt 2 behind the geforce2mx agp)?
- Dec 31, 2007
- 48,594
- 91
- 66,190
1647 marks in 3D-Mark 2001, that's about what I got with the Radeon PCI. Here's your comparison, using a Celeron 850 system:
~1400 marks, Radeon PCI
~1250 marks, TNT PCI
~2400 marks, Radeon AGP
BTW, I've owned lots of hardware to make such comparisons.
I've also found that when the AGP MX200 (6ns 64-bit RAM) and AGP TNT2 (6ns 128-bit RAM) are both pushed to the max, the TNT2 scores better.
<font color=blue>You're posting in a forum with class. It may be third class, but it's still class!</font color=blue>
~1400 marks, Radeon PCI
~1250 marks, TNT PCI
~2400 marks, Radeon AGP
BTW, I've owned lots of hardware to make such comparisons.
I've also found that when the AGP MX200 (6ns 64-bit RAM) and AGP TNT2 (6ns 128-bit RAM) are both pushed to the max, the TNT2 scores better.
<font color=blue>You're posting in a forum with class. It may be third class, but it's still class!</font color=blue>
I installed a Radeon PCI in my friend's 800 Mhz P3 system. That was almost two years ago. It was too slow then and is horrendous today.
The only advantage the Radeon had for my friend is while his onboard graphics (Intel 810, not 810e) allowed only 4 MB of shared memory which limited 3D graphics to 640x480 and only 16-bit colors the Radeon let him use 800x600 in 32-bit colors. The Radeon did manage 30 fps in Quake 3 at 640x480 and 800x600, high detail. 1024x768 dropped to something like 10 fps, though. 3DMark2000 scored 3600 points. 3DMark2001 score was 1500, I think. I only got it to complete the test once with those old Radeon drivers.
At the time, 2 years ago, the Radeon PCI (128-bit SDR memory) was faster than the alternatives, Geforce2 MX PCI and Voodoo4 PCI (3DFX was already defunct at the time and I didn't know there was a TNT2 PCI).
The Geforce2 MX PCI and Voodoo4 PCI were more expensive than the Radeon PCI. The Geforce2 MX had horrible visual quality. No support from 3DFX plus the VooDoo4 was power hungry and ran very hot which wouldn't be very good in a MicroATX case so I recommended the Radeon PCI for my friend.
He's a bit of nit-picker. I once updated his 810 chipset drivers which changed the default gamma on for the desktop. He phoned me saying something like, "This video card is crap! The colors are all messed! Everything looks different! The icons and text are too small! I want you to take out the new video card so that I can return it!" I looked at and adjusted monitor contrast and changed desktop resolution to 800x600. Problem solved. He also complained the noise from the Radeon made his system much louder. Being an overclocker, I couldn't even hear the fan, but I noticed he had moved the computer from the floor to the desk. When we moved it back to the floor the sound was much better (to his ears. I never heard any sounds).
As fussy as he is though, he never complained about the performance of the Radeon PCI. He got to keep his MicroATX OEM system and he could play his NFS5, the only game he plays. Everything is relative. If you have a crappy system any gains help I guess.
Incidentally, my niece has a Celeron 667 Mhz system with improved Intel 810e graphics (11 MB shared memory). I never really had a chance to benchmark it but it seemed faster than my friend's original configuration, at least in games. It also has full 32-bit color in 3D. I don't think there would be enough of a gain (if any) switching to a PCI video card in her case.
So there's my lengthy opinion on the subject.
<b>I type sixty words per minute. Ten are spelled correctly.</b>
The only advantage the Radeon had for my friend is while his onboard graphics (Intel 810, not 810e) allowed only 4 MB of shared memory which limited 3D graphics to 640x480 and only 16-bit colors the Radeon let him use 800x600 in 32-bit colors. The Radeon did manage 30 fps in Quake 3 at 640x480 and 800x600, high detail. 1024x768 dropped to something like 10 fps, though. 3DMark2000 scored 3600 points. 3DMark2001 score was 1500, I think. I only got it to complete the test once with those old Radeon drivers.
At the time, 2 years ago, the Radeon PCI (128-bit SDR memory) was faster than the alternatives, Geforce2 MX PCI and Voodoo4 PCI (3DFX was already defunct at the time and I didn't know there was a TNT2 PCI).
The Geforce2 MX PCI and Voodoo4 PCI were more expensive than the Radeon PCI. The Geforce2 MX had horrible visual quality. No support from 3DFX plus the VooDoo4 was power hungry and ran very hot which wouldn't be very good in a MicroATX case so I recommended the Radeon PCI for my friend.
He's a bit of nit-picker. I once updated his 810 chipset drivers which changed the default gamma on for the desktop. He phoned me saying something like, "This video card is crap! The colors are all messed! Everything looks different! The icons and text are too small! I want you to take out the new video card so that I can return it!" I looked at and adjusted monitor contrast and changed desktop resolution to 800x600. Problem solved. He also complained the noise from the Radeon made his system much louder. Being an overclocker, I couldn't even hear the fan, but I noticed he had moved the computer from the floor to the desk. When we moved it back to the floor the sound was much better (to his ears. I never heard any sounds).
As fussy as he is though, he never complained about the performance of the Radeon PCI. He got to keep his MicroATX OEM system and he could play his NFS5, the only game he plays. Everything is relative. If you have a crappy system any gains help I guess.
Incidentally, my niece has a Celeron 667 Mhz system with improved Intel 810e graphics (11 MB shared memory). I never really had a chance to benchmark it but it seemed faster than my friend's original configuration, at least in games. It also has full 32-bit color in 3D. I don't think there would be enough of a gain (if any) switching to a PCI video card in her case.
So there's my lengthy opinion on the subject.
<b>I type sixty words per minute. Ten are spelled correctly.</b>
well i just finished orderin my geforce4 mx 440 128mb PCI video card. well i'll tell u guyz how well or how bad it does. i kno thats alot of ram for a pci card but oh well i am gonna gamble wiht it since no one knows much about pci cards. i also bought 128mb pc133 ram 2 bring my memory to 256 which should be enough for now. so i wait when i get my stuff and see the results
- Dec 31, 2007
- 48,594
- 91
- 66,190
When I said roughly...I was taking into consideration the difference in system specs. ~1650 on thier Athlon system is roughly equal card performance to ~1400 on my old Celeron system. This is the criticism I get for overgeneralizing my statements rather than taking time for details.
<font color=blue>You're posting in a forum with class. It may be third class, but it's still class!</font color=blue>
<font color=blue>You're posting in a forum with class. It may be third class, but it's still class!</font color=blue>
happybelly2k
Distinguished
- Oct 31, 2002
- 26
- 0
- 18,530
I have a voodoo 3 3000 pci video card and I average 5fps in CS when a lot of shooting is going on. Is this normal for this card? would this be different with the agp version?
the rest of my system:
p3 866
316 ram
win98se
the rest of my system:
p3 866
316 ram
win98se
icy_oblivion
Distinguished
- Aug 30, 2002
- 1,067
- 0
- 19,280
I am running a Radeon 7500 PCI card now and it does quite nicely. I can play UT2003, NFS Hot Pursuit 2, and any other game that is out now. I can't play them above 800x600. And I do not play them with very high quality settings or all the special effects enabled, but I saw over 100x increase from my integrated 8MB video card in 3D Mark
In a world without <font color=red>walls </font color=red>or <font color=green>fences </font color=green>, what use have we for <font color=red>Windows </font color=red>or <font color=green>Gates.</font color=green>
In a world without <font color=red>walls </font color=red>or <font color=green>fences </font color=green>, what use have we for <font color=red>Windows </font color=red>or <font color=green>Gates.</font color=green>
happybelly2k
Distinguished
- Oct 31, 2002
- 26
- 0
- 18,530
damn... look what i just found. there is actually a radeon 9000 pci
http://www.newegg.com/app/viewproduct.asp?DEPA=&submit=Go&description=ati+radeon+9000+pci
damn if i knew this i would have gotten this. from the review on this site the radeon 9000 is almost as good as a ti 4200
http://www.newegg.com/app/viewproduct.asp?DEPA=&submit=Go&description=ati+radeon+9000+pci
damn if i knew this i would have gotten this. from the review on this site the radeon 9000 is almost as good as a ti 4200
Unolocogringo
Illustrious
- Dec 31, 2007
- 7,764
- 657
- 38,390
icy_oblivion
Distinguished
- Aug 30, 2002
- 1,067
- 0
- 19,280
The PCI bus would never be able to provide enough bandwidth to see that the 9000 was a faster card. You might gain something, such as a newer version of Direct-X support, or maybe extra shaders. But the FPS would be no different than the 7500 PCI
In a world without <font color=red>walls </font color=red>or <font color=green>fences </font color=green>, what use have we for <font color=red>Windows </font color=red>or <font color=green>Gates.</font color=green>
In a world without <font color=red>walls </font color=red>or <font color=green>fences </font color=green>, what use have we for <font color=red>Windows </font color=red>or <font color=green>Gates.</font color=green>
TRENDING THREADS
-
Question Can´t open BIOS because no keyboard input is received.
- Started by Blatscher
- Replies: 11
-
-
-
News US sanctions transform China into legacy chip production juggernaut — production jumped 40% in Q1 2024- Started by Admin
- Replies: 34
-
Question New pc build r9 7900x3d rtx 4080 super no post only ram rgb turns on- Started by Harvey Durward
- Replies: 4
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram