Every Video Card...RANKED!!! - Page 2

Even lower than the FX series? 8O

Quite right about the Ti and Rage 128. Nice catches.

Might ad the Intel stuff later, but I have to do some research...

Even lower than the FX series? 8O
Yes.

I wont be satisfied until I see the Matrox Millennium 400 and 450 on the list.


Or at least benchmarks for one VLB vid card.

the x2900 dont count. #4

Still got my ATI rage 128

You think a q6800 from Intel + Voodoo 5 could play oblivion?

Is it just me.... or was Deus Ex 2 a worthless game but with lots of potential?


I want to play it again, but knowing the outcome is the same regardless of action .... bleh.

Find and list the cheapest prices for all those video cards and you have a very useful list right there.

2fps = really bad slide-show...

A decent slideshow runs at more than 2fps

Don't forget the Parhelia @ 16XFAA !

I will have to disagree with you somewhat on the GF4 Ti cards.

They were excellent cards and having only recently shown their age.

Not saying they were the greatest thing since sliced bread but I generally agree on where they have been placed in the lineup.

I would go so far as to say many modern cards would not far noticeably better in DirectX 8.0 and 8.1 games of the time and many since.

[slightly-off-topic]
I don't think bringing Morrowind into a discussion about performance is a good idea. Fully, one third of the processing power it took to run Morrowind went into running copy protection, which was of course hacked upon release.[/slightly-off-topic]

Considering how far back the video card list goes in computer terms, the GF4 Ti cards are probably about where they should be.

Fine, not that it matters.

No one is saying they weren't excellent cards, however, he FX5200U was better than most people give it credit for compared to something like the GF3 series. And the 'recent' is the issue, not were they good when they came out. The TNT was good when it came out, but shouldn't be in the top 100 cards, and that's the point, current performance.

Fine, I don't and I know others would put them closer to a more realistic representation for NOW.

Until you play them at 1600x1200 or above and then the GF4 series would fall off the end of the world. There are performance holes in everything, the point is the majority of current cards would far outperform the GF4 series, only the lowest of the low would be in the same league and even then likely pull away at high res or with any AA. The GF4ti is wicked at 1024x768-1280x1024, but above that it struggles hard, and the R9500P wipes the floor with every one of the GF4s.

It wasn't brought in as a performance reference, re-read the thread, the use of Morrowind was to illustrate that the GF4ti like the GF3 were only PS1.3/DX8.0 capable, they did not have support for PS1.4 and thus were no fully DX8.1 capable. That was the point, which it illustrates very well since it was the first game to expose this difference in any tangible way. BF2 made it in a more dramatic way by supporting the R8500, but not the GF4ti.

Why would it matter how far back it went as to where they currently would find themselves for both performance and features? Like I said it shoudl be about current utility, not about giving them heritage points. The GF4ti series is very good for it's time, however it's very limited now, many cards have leapfrogged it, especially the competant PS2.0 cards of the generation afterwards, and even the not so competant ones if they were clocked fast enough. Also remember playable at low res and low features is still better than not playable at all.

It'd be funny to see somebody go and actually rank every video card since the history of video cards.