So much for getting a cheap graphics card...

[Geeky1]

Well... I WAS going to get a cheap card and wait for the NV40/R420... but Newegg has refurbished BBA 9700 Pros for $231... so, I bought one... and a Zalman ZM80A to go with it... had them rush the order (for $3? why not?) but shipped it fedex ground, so hopefully it'll be here by Friday... and @ $230, it was cheap enough to still be able to justify a R420 if it's as good as it's supposed to be...

[TheLostSwede]

You wont regret it. Infact, you will have ball.

[shwaip]

why must you tempt me. Lately, i've been noticing my gf3ti200 is not quite up to snuff. I run my games at 1280x1024 (native for my lcd), with 2x FSAA, and they're playable...but i want more...more I SAY!!!!!!!!!!! HAHAHAHAHA **chokes on own saliva** cough cough

Anyone know where to find a non-biased roundup of most of the newer graphics cards?

[TheBaron]

shwaip that might be difficult considering the whole driver fiasco. i think one thing everyone agrees on though is that if you want better image quality, go ATI

[Geeky1]

Shwaip, I can't give you a link to a review, but I can tell you this:

ATi cards have, and for the most part always have had, better image quality than nVidia's cards. Depending on how much you wanted to spend, I'd go for one of the following ATi cards (from most expensive/fastest -> least expensive/slowest)

Radeon 9800 Pro 256
Radeon 9800 Pro 128
Radeon 9800
Radeon 9700 Pro
Radeon 9800 SE
Radeon 9700
Radeon 9500 Pro
Radeon 9600 Pro
Radeon 9500
Radeon 9600
Radeon 9100 (Visiontek brand only!)
Radeon 8500
Radeon 9200 Pro/9000 Pro
Radeon 8500LE
Radeon 9000

Why all ATi? As I said, their image quality is significantly better, and in the cases where they're slower than competeing nVidia cards, it's not by much... and if you overclock them... my 8500 will keep up with a stock ti4600 (the 8500 does 325 core/~300 RAM max... )- it's hit 12k+ in my overclocked 2500+ system...

[Geeky1]

Forgot to attach this; compare the iq on the 5900 ultra to the 9800 pro. also check out the frame rate counter in the upper right hand corner

[TheBaron]

what map is that?

[SimGuy]

shwaip said
why must you tempt me. Lately, i've been noticing my gf3ti200 is not quite up to snuff. I run my games at 1280x1024 (native for my lcd), with 2x FSAA, and they're playable...but i want more...more I SAY!!!!!!!!!!! HAHAHAHAHA **chokes on own saliva** cough cough

Anyone know where to find a non-biased roundup of most of the newer graphics cards?

Good luck finding one a non-biased roundup.

If you want something powerful, take a gander over at either the FX5900 or the Radeon 9800 Pro. They are practically identical in all performance tests, with the Radeon's AA & AF performing better than the FX5900.

The Catalyst series of drivers are as stable as the Detonator series of drivers, so the "ATI has bad drivers" argument is really null and void now :)

If you don't want to spend that much, check out the slower members of the family: the 5600 Ultra or the 9600 Pro. True, the 9600 Pro does perform better than the 5600 Ultra, but you can't be the price/performance ratio of the 5600 Ultra.

Finally, if you are dirt poor and living in a cardboard box, buy the FX5200. At least it will keep you warm at night :) ;)

[TheBaron]

couple things, on the 9800 pro the 256 meg version has shown to not have much of an advantage, so save your money. also if you're going to drop down a tier, try to find a 9500 pro, there are still some floating around

[SimGuy]

TheBaron said
couple things, on the 9800 pro the 256 meg version has shown to not have much of an advantage, so save your money. also if you're going to drop down a tier, try to find a 9500 pro, there are still some floating around

The only advantage the 256 MB version really has is for running applications at a resolution & AA/AF rate that completely saturates the first 128 MB of VRAM. Instead of having to wait for the card to flush its' memory cache, the 256 MB version keeps on filling.

Not much of a performance increase, as most people don't run their games at 1600x1200 w/ 8x FSAA & AF, but the difference is anywhere between 3-7% over the 9800 Pro 128 MB at the same resolution & AA/AF settings.

[Geeky1]

As to the map:

Dun know... got it from hardocp.com's review...

As to the card:
256MB is not gonna hurt, if you've got the $$... If I was willing to cough up the money for the 9800 pro 256, I would because I can (and do) run resolutions as high as 2048x1536, and at that resolution, the extra RAM should help.

[reelbigfish]

I just ordered a Gainward GFFX5900 and it will be here soon. I will post as to how it runs. I use an LCD with native 1280x1024 so I like to always run games at that. I wasn't going to get a new card until my 9700Pro died. From what I have heard you can run the Gainward core up to stock speeds of a 5900 ultra and turn the mem up to 900 from 850 giving you a little faster than stock Ultra without the extra memory. Then again you can also buy a 9800Pro for the same price, so it's all up to which card manufacturer you want to go with.

[WuGgaRoO]

i liked the ATi.... but for 230...and a 9700pro...u cant beat it...i bought it for 400 not even a year ago..and i havnt been sorry ever since

[Geeky1]

Also, since it's BBATi, it should have their 5yr warranty, so even tho newegg only warranties it for 15 days, I should still be able to send it back to ATi after that if I need to... and I paid $300 for my Radeon 8500 2 months after if came out...

[TheSmJ]

Geeky1 said
As to the map:

Dun know... got it from hardocp.com's review...

As to the card:
256MB is not gonna hurt, if you've got the $$... If I was willing to cough up the money for the 9800 pro 256, I would because I can (and do) run resolutions as high as 2048x1536, and at that resolution, the extra RAM should help.


It's the "Sun Temple" map on UT2k3 (A Double Domination map)