PDA

View Full Version : Video Cards - Tips? Suggestions?



LuckY
04-12-2003, 12:00 AM
Like any other sane person in the united states of earth, I am eagerly awaiting may 15, 2003 to witness the shock and awe that is Matrix: Reloaded and the game Enter the Matrix.

I need to get a new video card to support the game as mine is very ancient (4mb of memory onboard). I'm going to a computer fair tomorrow and will be looking around for one. I am very uneducated when it comes to video cards. The system requirements for the game are GeForce2 256 or Radeon 7500 (or something like that).
So I know what type of chipset I'm looking for (one of those two), but I know nothing about what brand is a good card manufacturer. I located a card at Fry's that's $99 before a $50 mail-in rebate (btw, I'm not interested in spending more than $100; actually about $60 is what I'm aiming for). This is that card "PNY 64MB AGP Video Card with nVidia's GeForce4 MX440-SE 3D Chip." Is that any good?

Well, to sum up, The Matrix owns and I need an affordable GeForce or Radeon video card from a worthwhile card manufacturer. Any assistance you can offer will be greatly appreciated.

Thanks.

BMJ
04-12-2003, 12:08 AM
Stay away from Nvidia's "MX" chipsets, their very crippled... the memory bandwidth on them is less than HALF of the Ti chipsets, which aren't too much more.

As for ATI, stay away from their "cripples", the 7000, 8000, 9000, and 9500

dP munky
04-12-2003, 12:41 AM
>>As for ATI, stay away from their "cripples", the 7000, 8000, 9000, and 9500

isnt that like all of their cards except for the 9700, lol ?

BMJ
04-12-2003, 01:02 AM
The full bandwidth ATI chipsets are the 7500, 8500, 9700, and 9800 :)

LuckY
04-12-2003, 01:29 AM
Right, then does this sound better than the previous card I posted:
ATI RADEON 7500 64MB AGP Graphics Card
Model: 100-432001
$79.99 before $20 mail-in rebate

LuckY
04-12-2003, 10:59 PM
So I went to the computer fair and bought a:
MSI GeForce4 TI-4200 8x 128mB DDR DVI TV-out for $123.

Are the fans on video cards always so noisy nowadays??? sheesh. I thought I broke my PC after I booted after installing. Freaked me out.

BMJ
04-13-2003, 12:16 AM
Perfect! That's the card I've got...

the Ti4200 is the economical, yet powerful 3D card of the time for now. Good choice.

netboy
04-13-2003, 12:26 AM
but the ATi Radeon 9500 has already beaten the GeForce4 Ti plus the recently released ATi Radeon 9700 9is built to challenge the so-called GeForce5 or the nVidia FX, which I doubt the Radeon card will lose...

BMJ
04-13-2003, 01:02 AM
Radeon 9500 is a cripple card.

Radeon 9700 does outperform the Ti4200, but is around $300 (compared to $120)

GeForceFX outperforms the Radeon 9700, but ATI's new Radeon 9800 is competition for the FX.

novacain
04-14-2003, 12:45 AM
>>but the ATi Radeon 9500 has already beaten the GeForce4 Ti

in what 3d Mark? 3dMark gives a score based on the level of directX the card will run and its then on the cards speed.

As the Radeon is Dx9 compliant and the G4 is not (until the FX), the ATI cards will always get a score higher score.

Just to prove the worthlessness of the comparison nVida released a new set of drivers that 'tweeked' the 3dMark score so theat both were comparable.

>>which I doubt the Radeon card will lose
because the nVida FX is nearly Dx10 compatible and the ATI is just Dx9 compatible. Calling all those extra passes to create a better image is going to be slower but who needs Quake3 to run at 400fps?

>>the Ti4200 is the economical, yet powerful 3D card of the time for now. Good choice.

exactly.

Of a small consideration is that ATI was the company that leaked DOOM3 alpha (and left other companies game alphas on laptops). Due to this lack of consideration of other companies security and comercial privacy, they may find less support, optimisations for thier cards from game developers (as JC hinted).

netboy
04-14-2003, 11:23 AM
I can't exactly remember which mark gave me the score but I still agree that the GeForce series is more worth the money... Although the ATi Radeons is more powerful.

Perspective
04-14-2003, 12:38 PM
Originally posted by netboy
I can't exactly remember which mark gave me the score but I still agree that the GeForce series is more worth the money... Although the ATi Radeons is more powerful.

did you even read novacain's post? let me refresh your memory...


Origionall posted by novacain

...the nVida FX is nearly Dx10 compatible and the ATI is just Dx9 compatible...

BMJ
04-14-2003, 12:49 PM
I think the whole idea here people is bang for the buck...

TravisS
04-14-2003, 02:08 PM
Originally posted by Perspective
did you even read novacain's post? let me refresh your memory...

Sorry to burst your bubble, but being powerful and being DirectX compatible are two completely different things, so I don't know where you were trying to go with that :rolleyes:

The GeForce series are to the Intel P4 as the Radeon's are to and AMD Athlon.

GeForce's generally have more clock speed, but thanks to a crippling 128 bit memory bus they will almost always lose compared to the 256 bit ATI's. Especially when the resolutions become higher, and other features such as AA and AF are used.


And I don't know where novacain is getting this "the nVida FX is nearly Dx10 compatible" crap, but it's false information.

Silvercord
04-14-2003, 04:10 PM
I read in maximum pc that the FX has DDR II memory, but yet there isn't a DDR II specification (or at least not at the time of the FX release). That's cool.

Perspective
04-14-2003, 04:49 PM
Sorry to burst your bubble .... so I don't know where you were trying to go with that


yeah, i really dont know much about hardware, but i have an nvidia card thats been good to me so i thought i'd force my biased opinion on everyone by supporting facts that i really knew nothing of. ill go stand in the corner now....


btw: does the GFX really only have a 128 bit memory bus ??? or is that just cards <= GF4

Shadow
04-14-2003, 06:49 PM
Nvidia is horrible for tv-out. You want something, "BUILT" by ATI, not "powered" by ATI.

TravisS
04-14-2003, 07:08 PM
Originally posted by Perspective
btw: does the GFX really only have a 128 bit memory bus ??? or is that just cards <= GF4

Yeah :(

That's kinda the one thing that made the GFX a flop. Lots of hype leading up to the release of the card, and when it finally got finished it barely could hold it's own against the 6 month old 9700 Pro.

GFX has some pretty wicked image quality, but it's just slower than the 9700/9800 when pushed hard.

novacain
04-14-2003, 08:18 PM
>>And I don't know where novacain is getting this "the nVida FX is nearly Dx10 compatible" crap, but it's false information.

I just read the reviews.

http://www6.tomshardware.com/graphic/20030306/radeon9800pro-02.html

SAMSAM
04-14-2003, 09:18 PM
BMJ, u got me all paranoid now!

I have a 3dfx 3500 16mb on one comp orig price $340.00 1999
&
GEforce MX420 64mb on the second one orig price $99.00 2002

but they both perform the same(quake3) .
i havent done any benchmark though.

Now iam beginning to think 3dfx is the better card :rolleyes:

16 != 64. power of suggestion?

:confused:

novacain
04-14-2003, 10:03 PM
They may produce the same frame rate but will not produce the same graphics quality. That is the old 3DFx will not draw as detailed the same screen.

This is also true of the GForce4 MX cards which are crippled because they lack the nReal engine (one of the major differences between GF3 and GF4)

To put it another way, compare a car and a motor bike, will both get from A -> B at the same speed.
In the car you get climate control, cumfy seats ect.
In a limo you get even more.

TravisS
04-14-2003, 11:50 PM
Originally posted by novacain
>>And I don't know where novacain is getting this "the nVida FX is nearly Dx10 compatible" crap, but it's false information.

I just read the reviews.

http://www6.tomshardware.com/graphic/20030306/radeon9800pro-02.html


Hmmmz, that's odd. I'll have to ask around to see if it's valid, but last time I checked the GeForce FX isn't even completely DX9 compatible. It's lacking like 1 or 2 things that make it fully compatible.

I don't know that I entirely trust Tom's. They do have some good things, but some of their information can be a little mis-leading.



Oh, and SAMSAM, novacain speaks da truth :p I can make games run just as fast on my VooDoo 5 5500 AGP as I can on my Ti 4200 but that generally means:
On the VooDoo: 800x600 res. 2x AntiAliasing + edge aliasing. All other settings generally tweaked towards performance and not quality.
On Ti 4200: 1280x768 res. 4x AntiAliasing. 8x Anistopic filtering. Texture sharpening. All other setting generally tweaked for quality.

Like that the VooDoo might actually out-perform the Ti 4200 in FPS, but as you can see in these two screen shots the quality isn't even close.

VooDoo 5500 screen shot (http://invis.free.anonymizer.com/http://travissinclair.50megs.com/images/voodoolfs1.jpg)

Ti 4200 screen shot (http://invis.free.anonymizer.com/http://travissinclair.50megs.com/images/geforce2.jpg)

LuckY
04-15-2003, 07:33 AM
as you can see in these two screen shots the quality isn't even close.
Do you think you could point out the differences? There must be something wrong with my eyes because they look the same to me. *scratching head* ?

TravisS
04-15-2003, 01:37 PM
hehe, yeah. General texture quality (look at the road), shine on the cars, overall image quality, and lighting.

I wish I had a better shot for the VooDoo because there's a lot of graphical glitches such as non-textured areas. These screenys proabably aren't the best comparison (I was trying to find the best looking voodoo shot instead of crappiest) but when I play the game there is a really obvious difference.