I need the absolute best card for $300 maximum.

DodgerDodger
edited December 2004 in Hardware
Ok... this is seriously starting to tick me off. I've heard this and i've heard that. I can't find a video card and stick with it. I always end up trying to get something more powerful but hear it's not worth it. So, I am looking to all of you for help... please reccomend the best card to me. I might be able to go over my limit a bit... maybe by like, 10 or so dollars. It has to be AGP compatible as I do not have PCI-E. Here are some cards i've already looked at...

http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=14-102-362&depa=0

Very inexpensive. Heard some great things.

http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=14-102-294&depa=0

A bit on the price tag more but comes loaded with 256mb of RAM.

http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=14-102-431&depa=0

I am very sketchy about this card. SE has been dubbed "Shoddy-Edition" which is, unfortunently, what this card is. But, if this card is more powerful than the other cards mention above, than that's what i'll get.

Ok, that's all I got so far. Please help me!:bawling:

P.S. I am a heavy gamer and want to half-life 2 to it's fullest extent.

Comments

  • TheLostSwedeTheLostSwede Trondheim, Norway Icrontian
    edited December 2004
    There's no difference at all between the first two you linked to so the obvious choice would be the first one. The third is pretty close to the 9800XT if i'm not mistaken. The bang for the buck and my choice would be the first one. Try to get one refurbished and save a few bucks.
  • ThraxThrax 🐌 Austin, TX Icrontian
    edited December 2004
    To play devil's advocate:

    Asus GeForce 6800 GT, $319
  • DodgerDodger
    edited December 2004
    Mackanz wrote:
    There's no difference at all between the first two you linked to so the obvious choice would be the first one. The third is pretty close to the 9800XT if i'm not mistaken. The bang for the buck and my choice would be the first one. Try to get one refurbished and save a few bucks.

    The first one has 128MB of RAM and the second has 256.
    Thrax wrote:
    To play devil's advocate:

    Asus GeForce 6800 GT, $319

    And this card is better than the 9800 Pro..... how? Give me details, here.
  • SimGuySimGuy Ottawa, Canada
    edited December 2004
    For $300, you can do better than the Radeon 9800 series.

    Either shoot for an AGP GeForce 6600GT (LeadTek or XFX) for $220-$240 from NewEgg.com.

    The 6600GT will give you faster than Radeon 9800 Pro performance in all DirectX and OpenGL titles along with support for Shader Model 3.0 (SM3), giving you expanded visual effects in titles designed to support SM3.

    With 8 Pixel Pipelines, 3 Vertex Shaders and a core clock of 500 MHz, the 6600GT is more than capable of offering better performance than a 9800 Pro in any application, and it does.

    //Edit: The Asus V9999 Gamers Edition linked above for $319 is a CUT DOWN version of the reference GeForce 6800GT. Asus has taken the 6800GT core and paired it with inferior DDR1 memory running at 700 MHz DDR, which will impact the performance of the card considering that the NVIDIA Reference model 6800GT has GDDR3 running at 1000 MHz DDR. In essence, you are paying for an inferior product, not to mention the fact that this 6800GT only comes with 128 MB of the older DDR1 memory. IMHO, avoid this card, as you are really not getting a TRUE 6800GT, but rather a cut-down, weaseled version.
  • ThraxThrax 🐌 Austin, TX Icrontian
    edited December 2004
    Go here.

    Every time you see the 6800 Ultra, put the 6800 GT slightly below it (1-3%) in your mind. To compare it to the 9800 Pro, find the 128MB HIS Radeon 9800 scores and see how they match up.
  • TheLostSwedeTheLostSwede Trondheim, Norway Icrontian
    edited December 2004
    Dodger wrote:
    The first one has 128MB of RAM and the second has 256.



    And this card is better than the 9800 Pro..... how? Give me details, here.
    I see that now. My bad. That means that the second one is an 9800 XT originally. All you need is to flash the bios and you have an XT.
  • madmatmadmat
    edited December 2004
    SimGuy wrote:
    For $300, you can do better than the Radeon 9800 series.

    Either shoot for an AGP GeForce 6600GT (LeadTek or XFX) for $220-$240 from NewEgg.com.

    The 6600GT will give you faster than Radeon 9800 Pro performance in all DirectX and OpenGL titles along with support for Shader Model 3.0 (SM3), giving you expanded visual effects in titles designed to support SM3.

    With 8 Pixel Pipelines, 3 Vertex Shaders and a core clock of 500 MHz, the 6600GT is more than capable of offering better performance than a 9800 Pro in any application, and it does.

    //Edit: The Asus V9999 Gamers Edition linked above for $319 is a CUT DOWN version of the reference GeForce 6800GT. Asus has taken the 6800GT core and paired it with inferior DDR1 memory running at 700 MHz DDR, which will impact the performance of the card considering that the NVIDIA Reference model 6800GT has GDDR3 running at 1000 MHz DDR. In essence, you are paying for an inferior product, not to mention the fact that this 6800GT only comes with 128 MB of the older DDR1 memory. IMHO, avoid this card, as you are really not getting a TRUE 6800GT, but rather a cut-down, weaseled version.

    I'd say this would depend upon the DDRI they use on the card, my ASUS 5900U ram would hit 960mhz easily and was stable at that all day long. Yeah that card has less ram but my 6800NU with my ram running at 840mhz and all the pipelines unlocked (GPU@ 380mhz too BTW) is turning in scores that are comparable to stock clocked 6800GTs in AQ3 and 3D Mark '03.

    I personally believe part of the rason this is the case is simply that DDRI has lower latencies than DDR3 so the clock are slightly made up for by the ram reacting a little faster due to lower cas timings although I have no way to back this up other than compairing system ram specs I've seen of DDRI VS. DDRII running at the same speed.
  • DodgerDodger
    edited December 2004
    SimGuy wrote:
    For $300, you can do better than the Radeon 9800 series.

    Either shoot for an AGP GeForce 6600GT (LeadTek or XFX) for $220-$240 from NewEgg.com.

    The 6600GT will give you faster than Radeon 9800 Pro performance in all DirectX and OpenGL titles along with support for Shader Model 3.0 (SM3), giving you expanded visual effects in titles designed to support SM3.

    With 8 Pixel Pipelines, 3 Vertex Shaders and a core clock of 500 MHz, the 6600GT is more than capable of offering better performance than a 9800 Pro in any application, and it does.

    //Edit: The Asus V9999 Gamers Edition linked above for $319 is a CUT DOWN version of the reference GeForce 6800GT. Asus has taken the 6800GT core and paired it with inferior DDR1 memory running at 700 MHz DDR, which will impact the performance of the card considering that the NVIDIA Reference model 6800GT has GDDR3 running at 1000 MHz DDR. In essence, you are paying for an inferior product, not to mention the fact that this 6800GT only comes with 128 MB of the older DDR1 memory. IMHO, avoid this card, as you are really not getting a TRUE 6800GT, but rather a cut-down, weaseled version.

    http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=14-150-080&depa=0

    But, this only has 128-bit interface. Is that a problem? And will it really out-do the 9800 Pro (with 256-bit, mind you) on every level possible?
  • djstubbsdjstubbs NJ
    edited December 2004
    Personally I'd buy a 6800 or 6800 gt.
  • madmatmadmat
    edited December 2004
    I agree, go for a 6800 or the one Thrax linked to with the full 16p 6v pipes enabled, the lower amount of ram really doesn't impact it that much.
  • DodgerDodger
    edited December 2004
    Will the 6800 http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=14-150-068&depa=0 outperform the 6600GT Thrax recommended?
  • pseudonympseudonym Michigan Icrontian
    edited December 2004
    I got a 6800 for under 300 and then using Rivatuner I unlocked the pipelines and then OCed it. There is a risk with it because the pipelines might be bad but even if the pipelines are bad and you have to run stock its WAY faster than a 9800. I BELIEVE and I could be wrong, that just about any 6800 is faster than its ATI Xwhatever counterpart in most situations, but the ATI jumps ahead in some places.
  • madmatmadmat
    edited December 2004
    Dodger wrote:
    Will the 6800 http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=14-150-068&depa=0 outperform the 6600GT Thrax recommended?

    I'd think that the ASUS will have superior ram on it, they tend to overbuild things a bit so there's more likelyhood the ASUS would oc further as well.

    The XFX is a gamble, you might unlock all the pipes or you might not, therein lies the rub.
  • DodgerDodger
    edited December 2004
    madmat wrote:
    I'd think that the ASUS will have superior ram on it, they tend to overbuild things a bit so there's more likelyhood the ASUS would oc further as well.

    The XFX is a gamble, you might unlock all the pipes or you might not, therein lies the rub.

    No, the Asus 6800GT is exactly what Thrax said to avoid. It's a sliced down version of the other models.
  • TheSmJTheSmJ
    edited December 2004
    I'd go for either the 6800, or 6800GT. It all depends on if you want to go just a touch under, or over your $300 limit.

    BTW, it's pretty rare to find a 6800 with fully working pipelines which you can unlock. I'd go with the 6800GT, and overclock it to Ultra speeds if I were you (and just about all of them can reach Ultra speeds at the very least).

    With a 6800GT, you'll be much happier in the long run.
  • madmatmadmat
    edited December 2004
    Dodger wrote:
    No, the Asus 6800GT is exactly what Thrax said to avoid. It's a sliced down version of the other models.

    I think if you go back through here you'll see that Sim Guy said avoid it while Thrax recomended it and I still agree with the recomendation, I doubt very seriously that ASUS would use ram capable of less than 900mhz and sell it as a GT, they might clock it down to 700mhz but they're generally pretty good at leaving a ton of headroom on a board for OC'ing.

    Read some of the user reviews on newegg and see what the owners think of the card, judge a median from what they've pulled off on their OC's and decide from there after doing the same with other cards. The middle number as far as oc's goes is about what you'll see, if one card averages higher, then that's probably a decent choice to make.
  • DodgerDodger
    edited December 2004
    madmat wrote:
    I think if you go back through here you'll see that Sim Guy said avoid it while Thrax recomended it and I still agree with the recomendation, I doubt very seriously that ASUS would use ram capable of less than 900mhz and sell it as a GT, they might clock it down to 700mhz but they're generally pretty good at leaving a ton of headroom on a board for OC'ing.

    Read some of the user reviews on newegg and see what the owners think of the card, judge a median from what they've pulled off on their OC's and decide from there after doing the same with other cards. The middle number as far as oc's goes is about what you'll see, if one card averages higher, then that's probably a decent choice to make.

    But, the Asus 6800GT uses DDR1 chips... regular 6800GT's use GDD3 chips. So, will that make the Asus slower than it's counter-parts? And will the Asus 6800GT still be faster than the 6600 mentioned eariler in this thread?
  • muddocktormuddocktor
    edited December 2004
    If you look at the customer comments on the 2 cards, it looks like that Asus 6800 GT is a little better than the 6600 GT(to me at least). Here's a couple of screenshots of both, the first is the Asus 6800 GT:
  • GnomeWizarddGnomeWizardd Member 4 Life Akron, PA Icrontian
    edited December 2004
    It is a striped down version of the full blown 6800 GT but id still go with that over the x800se in a heart beat. I bought a full blown 6800gt it has twice the ram and the mem is clocked higher.
  • DodgerDodger
    edited December 2004
    muddocktor wrote:
    If you look at the customer comments on the 2 cards, it looks like that Asus 6800 GT is a little better than the 6600 GT(to me at least). Here's a couple of screenshots of both, the first is the Asus 6800 GT:

    Holy effing crap! Look at how much of a memory overclock that last review has! I have one those Thermaltake Giant II heatsinks, so it should keep my card nice and cool. So do I want to go the 6600 and overclock to death, or go for the 6800GT and overclock it? Hmmm... I guess the real question is, which will give me better performance after all overclocking has been said and done?

    Just as a side question... why do all the 6600GT cards I look at only have 128-bit interface? Wouldn't 256 be much faster?
  • madmatmadmat
    edited December 2004
    The 6600 is a budget card, the budget versions would take away the higher end customers if it performed as well the higher end cards do.

    The 6800 has 12p and 5v pipes but the 6800GT and Ultra both have 16p and 6v pipes along with the 256bit memory to give them the performance crown over the 6600's.

    If the 6600 had 256bit memory it would be too close in performance to the 6800 series and steal customers away that would otherwise buy a 6800.

    This is the whole reason I keep pointing out the 6800GT lite ASUS, it has the full shader compliment so it's no gamble on whether all the shader will or won't softmod, it's already got the unlocked pipes which puts it at twice the pixel pipes as the 6600 (I think).

    Whatever you decide I'd stay away from the X800se if I could.
  • floppybootstompfloppybootstomp Greenwich New
    edited December 2004
    $319.00 for the Asus 6800GT?

    His budget is '$300.00 or a little over'

    No contest, really, regardless of what RAM it has.

    imo...
  • muddocktormuddocktor
    edited December 2004
    floppybootstomp wrote:
    $319.00 for the Asus 6800GT?

    His budget is '$300.00 or a little over'

    No contest, really, regardless of what RAM it has.

    imo...


    That would be my opinion too, but it's not me that's buying the card. I did look very closely at the Asus vid card but I decided I needed to buy a stand-alone DVD-HD burner for the family to use for Christmas, which cost a little over $400. :bawling: I really was trying to swing a new vid card too.
  • floppybootstompfloppybootstomp Greenwich New
    edited December 2004
    muddocktor wrote:
    That would be my opinion too, but it's not me that's buying the card. I did look very closely at the Asus vid card but I decided I needed to buy a stand-alone DVD-HD burner for the family to use for Christmas, which cost a little over $400. :bawling: I really was trying to swing a new vid card too.

    I know the feeling. I really, really, want a 6800GT but what with Christmas and very little work coming in during the last few weeks or so, guess that one's on the back burner for a while :(

    And why do all my utilities bills arrive in December? :bawling:

    Doesn't seem that long ago I was feeling proud to have a 9800 Pro. Things sure move quick...
Sign In or Register to comment.