jimzdat Posted June 4, 2003 Share Posted June 4, 2003 Well, my old Voodoo5 5500 is about to totally annoy me Let's face it--there is no more good support for it, and it only pretends to play well with WinXP. I am looking to replace it, and was looking to see if anyone had any recommendations. I've been looking at the ATI Radeon 9000; anyone heard good or bad about this card? Can you suggest any other good choices? I do some gaming, nothing really heavy-duty, so I don't need ungodly frame rates or support for a 40 inch monitor or anything--just looking for a decent 128MB vid card (AGP of course) Thanks, Jim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TCH-JimE Posted June 4, 2003 Share Posted June 4, 2003 Jim, I own a Radeon card, but before I tell all, how much do you wish to spend, do you have a 4x or 8x AGP socket (Not the old 2x one) on your motherboard and whats your processor/memory like? Also country? Jim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leezard Posted June 4, 2003 Share Posted June 4, 2003 Right now ATI (Radeon) is the top dog when it comes to video cards, but the real question is how much money do you want to spend? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimzdat Posted June 4, 2003 Author Share Posted June 4, 2003 All good questions--guess I should have thought of that Looking to keep it ~$100 USD (if possible, lower of course) System: Abit KT7A v1.3 (non-RAID) (has a 4x AGP capability according to Abit) 1.13 GHZ Athlon w/Volcano 7+ cooler 512 MB SDRAM 2 WD 40GB HDD's DVD Drive (creative, w/separate decoder card) HP CD-RW drive SB Live! card modem, NIC Enough cooling fans to propel a small boat Driving a CTX PR960F monitor Will probably end up upgrading the mainboard and processor at a later date (who am I kidding--will DEFINITELY upgrade-as soon as I can convince my wife that I "need" to) so if the cards are 8x AGP, probably wouldnt be an issue, since most are backward-compatible I would think? Thanks Jim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leezard Posted June 4, 2003 Share Posted June 4, 2003 heres a good place to start ATI under $100 or nVidia a little over $100 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jweltz Posted June 4, 2003 Share Posted June 4, 2003 Here is another choice that is sub-$100: FX5200 Specs from Gainward Never mind that reviews have slated the card with low 3d Mark scores and that it essentially 'doesn't stand up to other cards'. If you're not heavy into 3D gaming, but would like to have a good, reliable card for the few moments you do play a game, this is a good card. Gainward has a good reputation for producing a quality card. Combined with nVidia's record for driver support, you can be assured a quality peice of hardware for a long time. Did that sound a little biased? Well, I guess I am biased towards ATI. How long did it take ATI to release an 'official' catalyst release for the Radeon cards? How long did it take for a 3rd party to write up a OGL wrapper, which ATI condemned saying their cards were never designed to work with OGL, so Radeon users could play OGL optimized games? WIth that aside, one also has to look at the card itself. Yes, the newer Radeon cards are smokers! Unfortunately, you would need an up-to-date, optimized 3Ghz+ system before you really start to notice the graphical differences. I jumped on the Radeon bandwagon instead of the then upcoming FX series from nVidia. I also followed the bandwagon to return the card once it was discovered that until ATI released a driver that would actually allow the newer cards to perform, a ti200 would outperform it. Granted, nVidia flopped on the release of the FX "dustbusters", in which they quickly said 'oops'. I guess that made them even... It's all moot really. For each application, one card will perfom better than the other. Look at a comparison between AMD and Intel processors. What about VIA-Cyrix processors? If you want cream-of-the-crop gaming, you choose Intel. If you want application functionality, you would look towards AMD. If you want a cheap, yet reliable processor for that Linux file server or home gateway tucked away in the closet, you would look towards a Duron, Celeron, or VIA-Cyrix chip. All choices are user specific. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leezard Posted June 4, 2003 Share Posted June 4, 2003 forgot to mention the backwards compatible issue.. Yes, most 8x AGP cards are backwards compatible the voltage is what isnt backwards compatible. Some cards are 3.0 some are 1.5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TCH-JimE Posted June 5, 2003 Share Posted June 5, 2003 Hi, I brought a ATI 64Mb Radeon 9200 for £50 2 months ago (tad annoyed that I didnt see the 128Mb was £10 more) and I have to say it rocks. I am playing all the latest games e.g Grand Theft Auto Vice City with no lags or delays. The 9000 range is fully DirectX 8.0 compliant which at present is all you need it to be, as no game supports DirectX 9.0a Do not buy a Nvida card, after a few years with thoose, i have come to understand they are inferior and more expensive with more problems during games and applications. Your specs are just fine. Jim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jweltz Posted June 5, 2003 Share Posted June 5, 2003 as no game supports DirectX 9.0a That's not entirely true. There are quite a few games that are optimized to take full-advantage of the features in DX9. No, they don't 'require' DX9 to play, but combining a card that is able to take full advantage of DX9 would enhance the playing experience, hence, newer technology. Plus, there may be a time, not too far down the road, where a DX9 compliant card will be required. Why not, since the prices are virtually the same, take advantage of the time and purchase the newer card? Jimxdat, You were looking at the Radeon 9000. It's not a bad card. I would recommend the nVidia card, however. The newer chipset takes full advantage of 8X AGP(AGP3.0), 4X, 2X, 1X(AGP2.0) and DX9(and earlier), along with being backwards compatible with older technologies. Either of the budget cards would easily fill your AGP slot and give you a tremendous graphical upgrade over your old V5500. If you want bang-for-you-buck, support of old/new technologies, and longevity in a graphics card, go with the nVidia (Gainward) -Jeff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TCH-JimE Posted June 5, 2003 Share Posted June 5, 2003 (edited) Hi, If you do want 9.0 DirectX compatble and cheaper then the rubbish Nvidia then go for the 9200 Radeon card made my alantis for $81 by clicking Here Of course the 9000 128mb one at $71 is still good enough. No computer game yet can use the full bandwidth of 8x that AGP offers, and even if it could, the chip would then choke. If you want major gaming (which you dont) wait for the 64bit AMD chips to come, they will rock! Here in the UK, only 6 games released that I could find in my local store this afternoon used Direct X 9.0a and none of them used it to its full ability. Unless your planning to play major games, play via the wallet, its kinder on the wife! Jim Edited June 5, 2003 by Jimuni Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimzdat Posted June 5, 2003 Author Share Posted June 5, 2003 Well, I went ahead and got the $81 Sapphire Radeon 9200 from Newegg (free shipping!)-I prefer ATI cards, because I've owned a couple of Nvidia's in the past, and thought they were garbage quite honestly. Yes, ATI has been slow getting drivers out once in awhile--I can live with that, as long as they are getting them out--like I said; I'm not into hardcore gaming, so the basic drivers will do just fine for me Thanks to all for your input, you may now resume arguing about ATI vs Nvidia, DX8 vs DX9, etc Jim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leezard Posted June 5, 2003 Share Posted June 5, 2003 lol arguing about ATI vs. nVidia is like arguing about AMD vs. Intel, its a never ending battle. both cards have their strong points, and the 128mb cards should be getting cheaper since the 256mb cards are hitting the market. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jweltz Posted June 5, 2003 Share Posted June 5, 2003 Unless your planning to play major games, play via the wallet, its kinder on the wife!Jim and others, You are correct in playing by the wallet. The choice of card would depend solely on the extent of use. The nVidia vs. ATI arguement is moot. All the cards are basically equal when compared across the board against similar units. As Mike also pointed out, the battle will always continue between both manufacturers and the choice ultimately depends on the consumer's preference for brand. No computer game yet can use the full bandwidth of 8x that AGP offers, and even if it could, the chip would then choke. If you want major gaming (which you dont) wait for the 64bit AMD chips to come, they will rock! I dislike responding like this, as I feel I am trolling rather than partaking in a conversation. By chip, I'm assuming you refer to the graphics chip, correct? If the card is AGP 8X compliant, the GPU will surely be capable of handling the bandwidth to utilize the full potential of 8X AGP. What will choke is the rest of the system. I was involved in the development of NR2003 (Papyrus Racing Games) During the production, I used a test system that consisted of a P4-3.06 (with hyperthreading), 8X AGP, various graphics cards-(Radeon 9700Pro, GF4-ti4600...basically anything I could get commercially at the time, except a pre-production Matrox Parhelia that was provided for testing), fully optimized systems, yada, yada, yada. With all the best stuff I could get my hands on, I was never, never, able to get the game to run wide-open. PRG designed the game to take full advantage of DX9, 8X AGP, Hyperthreading, etc... The game is capable of much more than the system can provide. Simply put, you can build the best possible system available now (6 months after the release of NR2003) and you will still not be able to run the game maxxed out (max resolution@32-bit / 16xAA / 8x-anisotropic) The developers are aware of what's available and they used everything they could when creating the game. Granted, not everyone will require the use of a fully optimized system, but saying that nothing has been made to support that fully optimized system would be incorrect. FWIW, also check out BF1942 (EA Games) If you can currently run that game at its maximum potential, you either have a better system than is currently available or you have a cryogenically-cooled, seriously overclocked system. -Jeff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs. Muddled Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 AMD Catalyst appeared on my desktop this morning telling me to download an upgrade. There is also appearing in my toolbar at the bottom of my screen. I don't recognize this program ... or understand what it does ... or how it got onto my "new" desktop computer. Is this a program that came with my computer? Is this something I "need." No, I do not do any gaming. I've started the download ... but have stopped it before installing. I'd like to hear what you have to say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TCH-Thomas Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 It sounds to me that it wants to update your computers display driver. So, should be no harm in that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs. Muddled Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 Thank you Thomas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.