I am running four different cards:
ATI 8500 (two of them)
ATI 9600
NV GF4Ti 4200
NV GF4Ti 4600
The ATI's have the best image quality.
The 4600 is the fastest of my group, but I choose to use the 9600 the most.
None of these are real great cards. But I have never spent more than $150 for a card. I buy used, referb or I wait for the prices to drop.
Tell us what you have in mind and we will narrow this down for you.
Actually, if you go to price grabber and look up 9800 pro's, i beleive there is a 256 one listed for 340 dollars.
0
Geeky1University of the Pacific (Stockton, CA, USA)
edited January 2004
256MB vs. 128MB all depends. If you've got a 21" Sony CPD-G520 or a similar monitor, then yes, it might be worth it. The Sony does 2048x1536 @ 80Hz, and yes, it's readable at that resolution (barely). If you want to run games at those kinds of resolutions, with AA & AF & maximum visual quality, then yes, the extra RAM may be worth it.
However, if you're using a monitor that can't do >1600x1200, then no, there's no reason to get the 256MB card.
As for the best card, it depends on your budget, but right now, there's on reason to buy anything with an nVidia chipset. nVidia screwed up royally on the GeForce FX. It's supposedly DirectX 9 compliant, but even the 5950 XT or Ultra or whatever the top of the line model now is can't run DX9 code at an acceptable speed. Hell, Valve had to go back and re-code parts of Half Life 2 to get it running properly on the FX chips.
You'll also find that ATi and Matrox both have better image quality than nVidia. This has always been the case, to the best of my knowledge. If you compare chips of the same generation, such as the GeForce 3 or 4, the Radeon 8500, and the Matrox Parhelia (the Parhelia may actually be DX9... I can't remember anymore), you will find that the Matrox and ATi cards have noticeably better image quality. Matrox cards provide this quality at the expense of speed- they're not gaming cards. They are designed for business use, and so even their high-end cards (the Parhelia) are dead slow.
ATi, on the other hand, has always been basically on par with nVidia in terms of raw speed; yes, the GeForce 4 Ti was faster than anything ATi had for a long while, but it was not (IMO) significantly faster.
The Radeon 9500, 9600, 9700, and 9800 chips and their derivatives, however, are all significantly faster than any competing nVidia card.
So, right now, your best bet is to get an ATi-based card.
visual quality/ all 2d work: matrox
gaming and 2d work: ati
like everyone said, nvidia screwed up when they wrote their own spec for dx9 and went with it instead of waiting for, m$'s spec.
yes geeky, parhelia is dx9, first one compliant
0
Geeky1University of the Pacific (Stockton, CA, USA)
edited January 2004
Sputnik, yeah... I thought it probably was, but I couldn't remember for sure. It's actually not all THAT slow. It's slower than a Ti4200/Radeon 8500, so for serious gaming, I consider it a joke, but for light duty gaming, it's fine.
best performance:value ratio = AMD XP Line, with Athlon64 coming on strong
best performance period, price premium attached = AMD FX chip
highest clockspeed, good overclockers, slightly faster than XP = Intel P4C series
With many many caveats attached to the above. What will it be used for, what are the rest of the system specs, do you overclock, budget, and several other considerations. There's no OVERALL right or wrong answer but we can try to advise you on the best for YOUR usage so tell us more.
Straight_ManGeeky, in my own wayNaples, FLIcrontian
edited January 2004
Advice, if overclocking all things in box, use AMD simply because they have more boards with non-fixed AGP\PCI ratios. There are some exceptions, but the NF7-S rules as an overclocker as AGP\PCI, RAM, and CPU can be independently timed more easily. Intel chipsets favor fixed AGP\PCI typically, if the BIOSs are not REAL widely modified from Intel chipset specs.
So, OCing things on those busses, AGP and PCI, is more problematic with traditional Intel chipset boards. I do NOT like Via for P4's, from experience. IF you are gamer and want to OC most of system, try the nforce2 boards and chipset for now.
If you can hang with stable FSb OC and mostly fixed AGP\PCI rates, then go with P4, best you can get within budget, possibly an Asus P4C800 (simply because it will take non-ECC dual channel RAM and single channel RAM for now so you can step RAM up later if money is tight now--PE865 chipset, same south bridge, north bridge more backward compatible than a P875 L337 chipset board which will run you 1.6-1.5 times as much) for a board-- yeah, will get ripped on, but am waiting for DDR400 Dual to drop before buying that. I am looking at one of those for the next P4 board I get, in about 2.5 weeks or less now given income flow.
I also have a Barton box, it will eventually get an NF7-S board.
im not sure you can say any longer "if overclocking go barton" simply because of the sheer oc'ing power of the 2.4c's combined with something like an ic7-max3
canterwoods and c-version p4's are simply incredible together, springdale boards too for that matter
0
Straight_ManGeeky, in my own wayNaples, FLIcrontian
edited January 2004
Yeah, but I do not like Via's driver approach to things, nor their BIOS prefs, nor the P875 chipset's very tight voltage needs right now. The IC7-Max3 is overpriced right now fro me, who has never paid more than $160 for a board (and that was a replacement Atari ST board), I tend to go with boards about 3\4 to 1 year old partly for BIOS maturity and partly like a more flexible chipset and a faster CPU when I figure out system specs. The Max2 might be a candidate for someone on a budget, though. Just the high-value-end point of view....
The ABIT IS7 is Springdale (865 Intel chipset) and at or under $100 now, very fully featured with onboard Intel RAID on ICH5R (SATA only, not on PCI bus) and having locked PCI/AGP buses. This is but one example of MANY good value very overclockable Intel based mobos out there right now, though of course the processor is going to be more money than an AMD XP series cpu. I suppose tho this fits in with your timing as it's roughly 3/4 yr old now. Just a quick thought, not an argument against AMD in any way shape or form.
I think you would get 100% agreement in these forums to stay away from VIA for P4, John.
I'm kind of interested in seeing the new PT880 chipset that's coming out from VIA, it offers dual channel DDR and if I remember correctly it's supposed to offer compatability with that odd DDR technology that was talked about shortly before the hammer chips came out.
I think it's called QDR ram but I could be wrong.
I know that the ram hasn't showed up yet but I'm just interested in seeing if it does once a chipset that supports it is out or if it ends up like VC133 and never goes anywhere.
Nope, no overclocking involved..... so consider everything running at standard spec.
EDIT: Several people have mentioned budget but don't be too worried about that as long as it's less than £2000 with everything that's fine. Don't suggest something like www.savrow.com though. It would be nice to have a 4ghz pc but money might be bit of an issue..........
Well, if you're not planning on overclocking your card at all don't worry a whole lot about getting samsung memory. If you can get samsung that's wonderful, if you can't that's fine.
Comments
What spec system is it going to slot into mate?
Welcome to Short-Media mate
I see you found the BT already.
ATI 8500 (two of them)
ATI 9600
NV GF4Ti 4200
NV GF4Ti 4600
The ATI's have the best image quality.
The 4600 is the fastest of my group, but I choose to use the 9600 the most.
None of these are real great cards. But I have never spent more than $150 for a card. I buy used, referb or I wait for the prices to drop.
Tell us what you have in mind and we will narrow this down for you.
Also is it worth the extra moolah to get a 256mb card?
However, if you're using a monitor that can't do >1600x1200, then no, there's no reason to get the 256MB card.
As for the best card, it depends on your budget, but right now, there's on reason to buy anything with an nVidia chipset. nVidia screwed up royally on the GeForce FX. It's supposedly DirectX 9 compliant, but even the 5950 XT or Ultra or whatever the top of the line model now is can't run DX9 code at an acceptable speed. Hell, Valve had to go back and re-code parts of Half Life 2 to get it running properly on the FX chips.
You'll also find that ATi and Matrox both have better image quality than nVidia. This has always been the case, to the best of my knowledge. If you compare chips of the same generation, such as the GeForce 3 or 4, the Radeon 8500, and the Matrox Parhelia (the Parhelia may actually be DX9... I can't remember anymore), you will find that the Matrox and ATi cards have noticeably better image quality. Matrox cards provide this quality at the expense of speed- they're not gaming cards. They are designed for business use, and so even their high-end cards (the Parhelia) are dead slow.
ATi, on the other hand, has always been basically on par with nVidia in terms of raw speed; yes, the GeForce 4 Ti was faster than anything ATi had for a long while, but it was not (IMO) significantly faster.
The Radeon 9500, 9600, 9700, and 9800 chips and their derivatives, however, are all significantly faster than any competing nVidia card.
So, right now, your best bet is to get an ATi-based card.
gaming and 2d work: ati
like everyone said, nvidia screwed up when they wrote their own spec for dx9 and went with it instead of waiting for, m$'s spec.
yes geeky, parhelia is dx9, first one compliant
O.K. Now the biggie;
AMD versus Intel?
This is a can...
|
<-- These are worms
[] <-- This is the can of worms that Douglas has just opened
Tick tick.. wheres the post then
best performance period, price premium attached = AMD FX chip
highest clockspeed, good overclockers, slightly faster than XP = Intel P4C series
With many many caveats attached to the above. What will it be used for, what are the rest of the system specs, do you overclock, budget, and several other considerations. There's no OVERALL right or wrong answer but we can try to advise you on the best for YOUR usage so tell us more.
That's my boy
So, OCing things on those busses, AGP and PCI, is more problematic with traditional Intel chipset boards. I do NOT like Via for P4's, from experience. IF you are gamer and want to OC most of system, try the nforce2 boards and chipset for now.
If you can hang with stable FSb OC and mostly fixed AGP\PCI rates, then go with P4, best you can get within budget, possibly an Asus P4C800 (simply because it will take non-ECC dual channel RAM and single channel RAM for now so you can step RAM up later if money is tight now--PE865 chipset, same south bridge, north bridge more backward compatible than a P875 L337 chipset board which will run you 1.6-1.5 times as much) for a board-- yeah, will get ripped on, but am waiting for DDR400 Dual to drop before buying that. I am looking at one of those for the next P4 board I get, in about 2.5 weeks or less now given income flow.
I also have a Barton box, it will eventually get an NF7-S board.
John.
canterwoods and c-version p4's are simply incredible together, springdale boards too for that matter
John.
I think you would get 100% agreement in these forums to stay away from VIA for P4, John.
I think it's called QDR ram but I could be wrong.
I know that the ram hasn't showed up yet but I'm just interested in seeing if it does once a chipset that supports it is out or if it ends up like VC133 and never goes anywhere.
EDIT: Several people have mentioned budget but don't be too worried about that as long as it's less than £2000 with everything that's fine. Don't suggest something like www.savrow.com though. It would be nice to have a 4ghz pc but money might be bit of an issue..........