Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations SkipVought on being selected by the Tek-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
What is the best Video Card???
- Thread starter AaronRG
- Start date
Probably an ATI 9600pro/XT Radeon, others to consider but might be XXX$'s more:
Geforce FX5600 ultra (the newer GPU release is faster!!)
Geforce FX5700
If you can find one? Radeon 9700pro (poss second hand)
Maybe a straight Geforce FX5900 (I have seen the prices on these tumbling down in the last month)
All these won't be far off your budget.
Martin
Replying helps further our knowledge, without comment leaves us wondering.
Geforce FX5600 ultra (the newer GPU release is faster!!)
Geforce FX5700
If you can find one? Radeon 9700pro (poss second hand)
Maybe a straight Geforce FX5900 (I have seen the prices on these tumbling down in the last month)
All these won't be far off your budget.
Martin
Replying helps further our knowledge, without comment leaves us wondering.
I would definately recommend the Radeon 9600 Pro or XT; there are just too many issues with the GeForceFX line. When you start turning up all the quality settings in a game, like higher resolutions, anti-aliasing, antiscopic filtering, etc. you will see a sharp reduction in speed in the GeForceFX line whereas the Radeons still hold pretty strong.
Then the ultimate trump card against the GeForceFX is the heat... they will heat up your case, and even the room it is in; and you add a much louder fan needed because of that.
So even if you can find a GeForce FX5900 for somewhat cheap, I still firmly believe you would be much happier getting a Radeon; the FX line is just too hot and too loud. I first had an FX5600 then switched to a 9600 Pro; I know how much heat radiated from the FX5600, I don't even want to guess how much comes out of a FX5900...
Then the ultimate trump card against the GeForceFX is the heat... they will heat up your case, and even the room it is in; and you add a much louder fan needed because of that.
So even if you can find a GeForce FX5900 for somewhat cheap, I still firmly believe you would be much happier getting a Radeon; the FX line is just too hot and too loud. I first had an FX5600 then switched to a 9600 Pro; I know how much heat radiated from the FX5600, I don't even want to guess how much comes out of a FX5900...
It's also worth mentioning that some of the higher-end GeForce FX models, like the 5900 Ultra, require an additional PCI slot for cooling. So if you're configuring a mini-ATX form-factor PC (like the Shuttle for example), you might want to take "excess heat" and "space" into consideration.
~cdogg
[tab]"All paid jobs absorb and degrade the mind"
[tab][tab]- Aristotle
~cdogg
[tab]"All paid jobs absorb and degrade the mind"
[tab][tab]- Aristotle
- Thread starter
- #5
Well, there are a lot of good sites out there. is a good place to start. They compile a list of low prices from all the top vendors.
Newegg.com is usually an excellent one-stop place to shop online. Most of their prices usually rank in the top 10 in most categories.
The biggest thing for you to decide is whether you want to go OEM or retail. Although you can save as much as 15% going OEM, be prepared for limited support, shorter warranties, or even without bundled software.
~cdogg
[tab]"All paid jobs absorb and degrade the mind"
[tab][tab]- Aristotle
Newegg.com is usually an excellent one-stop place to shop online. Most of their prices usually rank in the top 10 in most categories.
The biggest thing for you to decide is whether you want to go OEM or retail. Although you can save as much as 15% going OEM, be prepared for limited support, shorter warranties, or even without bundled software.
~cdogg
[tab]"All paid jobs absorb and degrade the mind"
[tab][tab]- Aristotle
Just a note*
Non ultra FX5900's only take up one slot, they are also generally quiet, because they don't have the massive cooling heatsink and fans of the ultra, they also produce far less heat, about the same as the Radeon 9800pro.
I just had a 9800pro in my machine for two days and swopped back to my 4800Ti, I couldn't be doing with black screening and the monitor constantly resetting, it wouldn't even complete a 3D benchmark. I tried 3 differant drivers and all sorts of fixes before I gave up on it.
It seems to me despite having some faults, FX's are far more stable and still have the best driver support.
Martin
Replying helps further our knowledge, without comment leaves us wondering.
Non ultra FX5900's only take up one slot, they are also generally quiet, because they don't have the massive cooling heatsink and fans of the ultra, they also produce far less heat, about the same as the Radeon 9800pro.
I just had a 9800pro in my machine for two days and swopped back to my 4800Ti, I couldn't be doing with black screening and the monitor constantly resetting, it wouldn't even complete a 3D benchmark. I tried 3 differant drivers and all sorts of fixes before I gave up on it.
It seems to me despite having some faults, FX's are far more stable and still have the best driver support.
Martin
Replying helps further our knowledge, without comment leaves us wondering.
Just to ellaborate on the FX5900 front, it seems Nvidia have been playing a back door sneaky on us all and have introduced a variation on the card said to be "the new" 4200Ti.
By that I mean a cheapish card that performs within 20% of it's piers the FX5900ultra/FX5950ultra and Radeon 9800pro/XT.
This card has all the hall marks of the old GF4 4200Ti, it is cheap (in the £150/$200 bracket) uses cheaper memory and simple reference design PCB but has few compromises that really hit performance.
Called XT (yes it would seem borrowed from ATI) they have very slightly slower memory, 2,8ns instead of 2.2ns but pegs some of that performance back by vertue of the fact that the 2.8ns chips have lower cas latencey.
Unlike the SE versions of the Radeon 9800 which are missing certain pipelines, the XT variant of the FX5900 has the full 256bit processor core of it's big brother.
The long and short of all of this is a card performing withing 20% of it's big brother but costing half the price!
(sounds familiar doesn't it! 4200Ti ala 4600Ti)
At only a few dollars more these FX5900 XT's are said to soundly beat the Radeon 9600pro/XT and FX5700ultra cards in almost all tests (yes I am aware of some DX9 failings with the FX range)
I suspect as one reviewer put it, we have a new mid range king to take over from where the GF4 4200Ti's left off.
Martin
Replying helps further our knowledge, without comment leaves us wondering.
By that I mean a cheapish card that performs within 20% of it's piers the FX5900ultra/FX5950ultra and Radeon 9800pro/XT.
This card has all the hall marks of the old GF4 4200Ti, it is cheap (in the £150/$200 bracket) uses cheaper memory and simple reference design PCB but has few compromises that really hit performance.
Called XT (yes it would seem borrowed from ATI) they have very slightly slower memory, 2,8ns instead of 2.2ns but pegs some of that performance back by vertue of the fact that the 2.8ns chips have lower cas latencey.
Unlike the SE versions of the Radeon 9800 which are missing certain pipelines, the XT variant of the FX5900 has the full 256bit processor core of it's big brother.
The long and short of all of this is a card performing withing 20% of it's big brother but costing half the price!
(sounds familiar doesn't it! 4200Ti ala 4600Ti)
At only a few dollars more these FX5900 XT's are said to soundly beat the Radeon 9600pro/XT and FX5700ultra cards in almost all tests (yes I am aware of some DX9 failings with the FX range)
I suspect as one reviewer put it, we have a new mid range king to take over from where the GF4 4200Ti's left off.
Martin
Replying helps further our knowledge, without comment leaves us wondering.
Here you go! one example of the new XT FX5900
Martin
Replying helps further our knowledge, without comment leaves us wondering.
Martin
Replying helps further our knowledge, without comment leaves us wondering.
Direct Quote taken from review* PC Open Magazine Awards
** NVidia raises the bar on mid–range performance **
'It leaves both the ATi Radeon 9600XT and the GeForce FX 5700 Ultra out in the cold'
'We ran a number of tests on the card, including our new custom Tomb Raider test, designed specifically to determine DirectX 9 performance. The results were pretty impressive
beating the GeForce FX 5700 Ultra and a Hercules 9600XT card in practically every test.
Starting with 3DMark03, at a default resolution, the AOpen scored 4995 compared to 3180 for the 5700 Ultra and 3679 for the 9600XT. In X2, at an intensive 1,280 x 1,024 with both
anti-aliasing and anisotropic filtering enabled, the AOpen breezed past both
the 5700 Ultra and the 9600XT with 26.7 fps to their 19.5 and 20.5 respectively.
As you can see from the graphs it also dominated at Unreal Tournament 2003.
In the graphics stressing Halo, it was the only one of the three to produce a really comfortable
score at 1,024 x 768 with a healthy 42.7 fps. Tomb Raider revealed the same -
a generous 51.4 fps compared with to 29.8 fps for the Hercules 9600XT
Advertised at £149 inc Vat UK (under $200 US)
Martin
Replying helps further our knowledge, without comment leaves us wondering.
** NVidia raises the bar on mid–range performance **
'It leaves both the ATi Radeon 9600XT and the GeForce FX 5700 Ultra out in the cold'
'We ran a number of tests on the card, including our new custom Tomb Raider test, designed specifically to determine DirectX 9 performance. The results were pretty impressive
beating the GeForce FX 5700 Ultra and a Hercules 9600XT card in practically every test.
Starting with 3DMark03, at a default resolution, the AOpen scored 4995 compared to 3180 for the 5700 Ultra and 3679 for the 9600XT. In X2, at an intensive 1,280 x 1,024 with both
anti-aliasing and anisotropic filtering enabled, the AOpen breezed past both
the 5700 Ultra and the 9600XT with 26.7 fps to their 19.5 and 20.5 respectively.
As you can see from the graphs it also dominated at Unreal Tournament 2003.
In the graphics stressing Halo, it was the only one of the three to produce a really comfortable
score at 1,024 x 768 with a healthy 42.7 fps. Tomb Raider revealed the same -
a generous 51.4 fps compared with to 29.8 fps for the Hercules 9600XT
Advertised at £149 inc Vat UK (under $200 US)
Martin
Replying helps further our knowledge, without comment leaves us wondering.
cassiohui
Don't believe everything that you read.
I've just had a Radeon 9800pro on my Nforce2 motherboard for the last 2 days.
Black screens, monitor constantly resizing, intermittant bad artifacts and ramdomly unable to complete 3DBenchmarks as well as crashing out of games.
Thats with default settings and 3 differant drivers.
My colleage at the shop runs both a Radeon 9800XT and a Gainward Golden sample FX5900U, he has similar problems with his Rad, admitting that it is quick but in his words
"fussy as hell" it just won't play some games, full stop.
But the FX5900U, again in his words "takes whatever you throw at it"
I know the general concensus is ATI have the upper hand, but I can assure you there is a strong silent majority that although except ATI's good performance have experienced similar concerns to ours.
AND, well I swopped out the Radeon 9800pro for an FX5900 and guess what! absolutely rock solid performance without any wierdness (accepting slightly lower benchmarks compared to the Rad) that I can live with.
Martin
Replying helps further our knowledge, without comment leaves us wondering.
Don't believe everything that you read.
I've just had a Radeon 9800pro on my Nforce2 motherboard for the last 2 days.
Black screens, monitor constantly resizing, intermittant bad artifacts and ramdomly unable to complete 3DBenchmarks as well as crashing out of games.
Thats with default settings and 3 differant drivers.
My colleage at the shop runs both a Radeon 9800XT and a Gainward Golden sample FX5900U, he has similar problems with his Rad, admitting that it is quick but in his words
"fussy as hell" it just won't play some games, full stop.
But the FX5900U, again in his words "takes whatever you throw at it"
I know the general concensus is ATI have the upper hand, but I can assure you there is a strong silent majority that although except ATI's good performance have experienced similar concerns to ours.
AND, well I swopped out the Radeon 9800pro for an FX5900 and guess what! absolutely rock solid performance without any wierdness (accepting slightly lower benchmarks compared to the Rad) that I can live with.
Martin
Replying helps further our knowledge, without comment leaves us wondering.
Neighbor came over today with his income tax refund in several newegg boxes. To make a short story shorter, the video card was the ATI flavor of a 9800XP and the mobo a NF7 ver 2.0.
That is the most awesome video I've ever seen; but, for about 500 bucks it should be. It took me 3 hours to run out of excuses to play with that combo.
I wonder though, if you could tell the difference with a nice 5900? Reported stability problems with a Nforce motherboard also shouldn't occur with a $500 gpu so it sounds like the best may not be.
Skip
That is the most awesome video I've ever seen; but, for about 500 bucks it should be. It took me 3 hours to run out of excuses to play with that combo.
I wonder though, if you could tell the difference with a nice 5900? Reported stability problems with a Nforce motherboard also shouldn't occur with a $500 gpu so it sounds like the best may not be.
Skip
paparazi,
i know there are some compatibilty issues with ati display cards on nf2 boards. but they only appear on certain boards, not all. i know quite a few people using nf2+ati display and they never had any compatibility issues.
Computers are unreliable. Humans are worse.
i know there are some compatibilty issues with ati display cards on nf2 boards. but they only appear on certain boards, not all. i know quite a few people using nf2+ati display and they never had any compatibility issues.
Computers are unreliable. Humans are worse.
Agreed cassiohui! I use a Gigabyte GA7-NNXP but my friend from the shop is intel, through and through, think he's got the IC7 Max 3 in one of his systems with a 3gig HT P4 800, he has 4 machines with differant configs, all Intel, all high end.
I know he's got 2x GF4 4800Ti's Leadtek, 1x GF4 4600 Leadtek, 1x Gainward FX 5900Ultra Golden sample, 1x Radeon 9800XT (Hercules)which he has had for about a month and he upgraded from a Hercules 9800pro.
All the cards have been swopped around his systems at sometime or another so I say what I say with some personnal and third party knowledge.
From the two ATI's he has had and the one I've had, plus the many we have fitted to customers.
The general opinion is good performance in relation to there equivelent FX counterparts let down by less than perfect drivers (including the latest 53.03's) which lead to certain annomolies and annoyancies in use.
I think if you ask your friends again to give you the 100% picture, then the whole truth would out.
It's not that they are no good, it's just that these issues leave them far from being perfect.
OK FX5900/FX5900U/FX5950U's aren't perfect as well, but are a lot less annoying to live with, thats for sure.
I gave the Rad 9800pro a chance (I bought one) but now an FX5900 resides in my PC and I am happy with the choice.
Martin
Replying helps further our knowledge, without comment leaves us wondering.
I know he's got 2x GF4 4800Ti's Leadtek, 1x GF4 4600 Leadtek, 1x Gainward FX 5900Ultra Golden sample, 1x Radeon 9800XT (Hercules)which he has had for about a month and he upgraded from a Hercules 9800pro.
All the cards have been swopped around his systems at sometime or another so I say what I say with some personnal and third party knowledge.
From the two ATI's he has had and the one I've had, plus the many we have fitted to customers.
The general opinion is good performance in relation to there equivelent FX counterparts let down by less than perfect drivers (including the latest 53.03's) which lead to certain annomolies and annoyancies in use.
I think if you ask your friends again to give you the 100% picture, then the whole truth would out.
It's not that they are no good, it's just that these issues leave them far from being perfect.
OK FX5900/FX5900U/FX5950U's aren't perfect as well, but are a lot less annoying to live with, thats for sure.
I gave the Rad 9800pro a chance (I bought one) but now an FX5900 resides in my PC and I am happy with the choice.
Martin
Replying helps further our knowledge, without comment leaves us wondering.
In order to have a clear picture on compatibility issues, you need a sample in the tens of thousands. I'm not sure where you will find such a report, but I can tell you that one person's experience with ATI or Nvidia can easily differ with another and is not necessarily conclusive.
Therefore, take anyone's personal accounts "lightly with a grain of salt".
![[bigcheeks]](/data/assets/smilies/bigcheeks.gif "[bigcheeks] [bigcheeks]")
~cdogg
[tab]"All paid jobs absorb and degrade the mind"
[tab][tab]- Aristotle
Therefore, take anyone's personal accounts "lightly with a grain of salt".
~cdogg
[tab]"All paid jobs absorb and degrade the mind"
[tab][tab]- Aristotle
Actually the best video card for the buck is the NVidia GForce 4 MX 440 found here: I used this video card to replaced my ATI Radeon 9800 Pro video card and got better results. The proof was in the performance and not in the price. To each his own.
Well, what makes the "best video card for the buck" heavily depends on what kind of performance you want to get. For example, the GeForce4 MX cards do not have any vertex shaders which are necessary for DirectX 8 games. Therefore, a GeForce4 MX is actually a "suped-up" GeForce 2 card and is actually no better than many GeForce 3 Ti cards that can be found for almost the same price.
Basically, you have 3 categories:
1. Best DirectX 7 gaming card for the buck-
[tab]Debateable. I still don't think I would choose a GeForce4 MX over an equivalently priced GeForce 3 Ti.
2. Best DirectX 8 gaming card for the buck-
[tab]I guess all these categories are debateable, but I still like the GeForce Ti 4200 for the price. It's only $30 more than the cheapest GeForce4 MX's, can play newer games, and is a heck of a lot faster. Check this link out for a name brand card at a low price:
3. Best DirectX 9 gaming card for the buck-
[tab]Hmmm...this category changes too often to keep up. I still like ATI's Radeon 9600 XT ($150+) or Pro ($75+) edition for the price. The Pro version outperforms the GeForce 4 Ti in only DirectX 9 benchmarks and loses in most DirectX 7 and some DirectX 8 ones.
~cdogg
[tab]"All paid jobs absorb and degrade the mind"
[tab][tab]- Aristotle
For general rules and guidelines to get better answers, click here: faq219-2884
Basically, you have 3 categories:
1. Best DirectX 7 gaming card for the buck-
[tab]Debateable. I still don't think I would choose a GeForce4 MX over an equivalently priced GeForce 3 Ti.
2. Best DirectX 8 gaming card for the buck-
[tab]I guess all these categories are debateable, but I still like the GeForce Ti 4200 for the price. It's only $30 more than the cheapest GeForce4 MX's, can play newer games, and is a heck of a lot faster. Check this link out for a name brand card at a low price:
3. Best DirectX 9 gaming card for the buck-
[tab]Hmmm...this category changes too often to keep up. I still like ATI's Radeon 9600 XT ($150+) or Pro ($75+) edition for the price. The Pro version outperforms the GeForce 4 Ti in only DirectX 9 benchmarks and loses in most DirectX 7 and some DirectX 8 ones.
~cdogg
[tab]"All paid jobs absorb and degrade the mind"
[tab][tab]- Aristotle
For general rules and guidelines to get better answers, click here: faq219-2884
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Question