what graphics card

GUI

lads..
gonna get new graphics card
got agp 4x , elite k7s5a mobo..

whats best value card i can get for 100-120 euros..

cheers

GUI

also forgot..

with agp and dvi interface please :-)

Quigs Snr

Creative Labs Geforce 4 Ti 64MB, 8x AGP, TV-OUT includes a full copy of Hitman 2, for 119 Euro from Komplett.ie.

Accept no substitutes, there is no better card for the money.

Quigs Snr

Oh yes DVI is included in that.

Put one of those into an ECS K7S5A, exact same card with 256MB PC2100 DDR, AMD XP2000, scored just short of 10,000 in 3DMark 2001, the card overclocks very nicely too.

MisterAnarchy

I bought a 64Mb Sapphire Radeon 9100 off Komplett for €80.
It is the best Graphics card under €100 by a bit.
Its basically a souped up 8500 which this time last year was Radeons top card.
It can push the 4200 close in most tests and is unbelievable value .
The 128Mb version isnt worth the extra money as the performance gain if any is negligible.

GUI

64Mb Sapphire Radeon 9100 off Komplett for €80.
Creative Labs Geforce 4 Ti 64MB, 8x AGP, TV-OUT includes a full copy of Hitman 2, for 119 Euro from Komplett.ie.

lads which is better in benchmarks?

Quigs Snr

The 4200 wee's all over the 9100 by a distance.

I have the radeon 8500 64mb in my secondary games machine(which is the same card, the 9100 is just rebadged to make it a better fit in the performance stakes, i.e. it ran games better than the 9000, yet seemed slower for being called 8500, so it was renamed to make it seem more fresh as a product and also to place it more correctly in the ATI performance stakes). It's a fine card and if you are on a budget, for 50% less than the GF4 go for it. It will play everything out there at the moment in a manner you can enjoy.


Expect with your rigs, scores of about 6500 - 7000 ish for the radeon 9100 roughly

About 9000 - 9,500 for the 4200

In real world tests, forget the Quake 3 benchmarks, at this level all cards can run silly framerates, In games like UT2003, mafia, splinter cell the 4200 roars ahead. Check out .....

http://www.tomshardware.com/graphic/20021218/vgacharts-04.html

From personal experience. I would pay the extra and get the GF4, but if I wanted to save a bit of cash, I wouldn't be crying into my porridge tomorrow morning if the postie brought me the 9100 instead of the 4200 !

GUI

gonna move for this card so
http://www.komplett.ie/k/ki.asp?action=info&p=28943&t=278&l=2&AvdID=1&CatID=24&GrpID=1&s=pl

4200..
make a comprise between all your views

Drazhar

you did say you board is AGP4x didn't you??

Are 8x cards backwards compatible??

Whats the voltage on you existing 4x agp slot?? You can check this in the manual or the BIOS i think, cos if its 3.3v, then i dont think you can get that card, all 8x cards are 1.5v, i thinks, am i wrong??

GUI

im 99% sure 8x cards are backwards compatable..
anyone wanna clearify this

MiCr0

they are indeed
i've got an ancient mb and an agpX8 card

Drazhar

Well, the second thing i was on about, the voltage, definately want to check that. I think a few newer cards wont let you boot up if they detect 3.3v AGP port.

Or maybe that might be newer boards and older 3.3v AGP cards

either way, check it out. The last thing you want is to shell out dosh for a bit of kit and then turn it into a complicated paperweight

Chad ghostal

Could someone who knows anything about gc's gimme a hand, im looking for a card for around 250-300 e's, im clueless about cards but these seemed like not too bad a choice..

http://www.komplett.ie/k/ki.asp?action=info&p=29005&t=278&l=2&AvdID=1&CatID=24&GrpID=1&s=pl

&

http://www.komplett.ie/k/ki.asp?action=info&p=31985&t=278&l=2&AvdID=1&CatID=24&GrpID=1&s=pl

if you could help or could suggest better please post, in a bit of a hurry, need it soon.

BabyEater

Definitly go for the 9700 for that price Chad. No difference between that and the 9700Pro except for lower clock speeds.

Chad ghostal

thanks for that, i think ill get it , im not sure theres much of a difference but the 9700 seems better..

Chowley

you can get the MSI FX 5200 128Mb gor about euro120 on komplett you get about 14 games with that too.Also good if you want to overclock it and its Direct x 9 compatible everything you need and great value and software package .:D

CivilServant

Do not get an FX 5200, it sucks royally, a geforce 4 Ti can beat it. DX9 support... when DX9 games come out I doubt this card will be able to keep up.

RicardoSmith

Forget benchmarks they can tell you all sorts of fibs unless you know how to interpret them properly. I had a 9000pro which is better than the 9100 and I thought it was really slow in a lot of games. I also had problems with the drivers (as usual for ATI). I've replaced it with a GF4ti4200 and its hugely better. The FX5200 is meant to be pretty poor.

Chowley

I have read 3 great reviews of the fx 5200 128mb
The other low end Gforce gfx cards only surpass it in a couple of tests and when you overclock it it leaves the others for dead the msi comes with a heatsink unlike a few of them which would not be to great to overclock but the sparkle and msi cards are excellent

RicardoSmith

Originally posted by Chowley
I have read 3 great reviews of the fx 5200 128mb
The other low end Gforce gfx cards only surpass it in a couple of tests and when you overclock it it leaves the others for dead the msi comes with a heatsink unlike a few of them which would not be to great to overclock but the sparkle and msi cards are excellent

Can you post some links to the reviews then? Curious since thats the opposite to what I've read about it so far.

Chowley

It seems to depend on the manufacturer.
MSI and Sparkle got good reviews in I think it was PC-PRO magazine and PC Zone as far as I remember.
Then there was one on techseekers which was a lesser known manufacturer cant remember the name it had no fan but they said it beat its predescessors on most tests and if you add a fan its good for overclocking.
The MSI and Sparkle already have a fan.

Are you sure your not getting mixed up with the 64Mb version I havent heard anything good about that one.

It is the best buy gfx card in this months PC-Pro which is usually reliable.

RicardoSmith

I didn't think theres that much of a difference between 64mb and 128mb of menory on a card. At least there hasn't been up to now. The PC Pro I have which has the 5200 and 5600 and reckons the 5600 is only on a par with a ti4200 and indeed the 4200 is better in some of the tests. The 5600 in others. It puts the 5200 as slightly better than a radeon 9200 and thats well off the pace of a ti4200.

Chowley

ya the 5600 is the failure of that family.
Have you seen the 5900 ultra supposed to be unreal.
Komplett have priced the 256mb 5900 ultra €900 great price, love to know where that came from.
He is looking for a budget card though back to the subject and supposedly thats the best about.
Id certainly go for it you can always overclock, it gets good results i think it was 10 fps extra on ut2003 with moderate overclocking.Thats pretty nice although ive only started to take notice of overclocking recently though so could be wrong.:ninja:

50Cent

BabyEater Said:

Definitly go for the 9700 for that price Chad. No difference between that and the 9700Pro except for lower clock speeds.

So there is a difference then. One has lower clock speeds. The other has not. the pro version of the Radeon series is a good deal better than the non-pro. 9700 Pro is A LOT better than the 9700.

PiE

Is there much difference between the GF4 Ti4200 64MB and the 128MB version? Worth the extra cash?

GUI

lots of ppl told me not worth the extra cost

50Cent

Now im not one to go by 3d mark 2001(its for directx 8 cards) and apparently is accurate. this is controversial. ATI think it isnt. Nvidia think it is. or something like that...

http://www6.tomshardware.com/graphic/20021218/vgacharts-05.html

In this, it shows the 64mb version of most cards are better. I personally dont follow it. I mainly go by PC Pro and then get a review on that card i like on the net to be sure. Benchmarks for gcards arent what i go by, becos we all play our games on different settings. Thats jus one of the reasons...

Anyway, feast your eyes on that link and if you want to go by it, do. I would go for the 128mb version anyway regardless.

po0k

the reason the cards with more ram are slower is because in order to maintain a decent price that'll sell, they have to use cheaper ram (ie slightly higher latency).
The advantage is you can fit more textures on the card.
I'd rather go for 128megs that a few 10ths of a nanosecond.

50Cent

Cool...didnt know that. But I imagine the 128mb version has its own advantages over the 64mb. Sure all the top end cards come with 128mb ram now anyway so its actually the in thing.

BTW: Just saw specs for doom III...its nasty. The top end cards out now can get 40fps on the demo preview on toms hardware. 40fps...thats not a lot is it? But thats on the highest settings possible and its the latest p4 3.06ghz system they tested it on too...nasty

po0k

the advantage of 128meg ram as opposed to 64 is that you can fit more onboard without having to rely on the AGP bus access to slower main memory.

The requirements for Doom3 atm are very high because it's alpha code, just the basic technology elements are implemnted, no polish or real optimisation has been done yet.
It'll run better/look better when it's finished. It'll need 128meg ram though for all those high-res textures, and plenty of bandwidth not to mention gpu core speed will once again become a limiting factor

RicardoSmith

The 64mb GF4ti4200 is quicker than the 128mb card. I don't think theres any other card that comes with 128 and 64 versions. No one knows who much memory new games will need, unless you have a crystal ball and see into the future. Theres no "current" game that requires 128mb of memory.

The only place that the the extra memory on a 128mb card becomes useful is if you are playing a game with 4x aa or higher enabled and are using very high res like 1600x1200. The only cards that can give useful framerates at this res are the High end cards like the 9500pro and 9700/pro cards.

So if you are talking budget cards then you won't be getting one of the higher end cards, and so all you will be doing is paying extra for the extra ram on a 128mb card and you won't see any performance benefit for the extra money. If you think you are future proofing your purchase then forget it. In 6 months you'll be able to buy a card for half the price thats twice as fast.

At the moment. The GF4ti4200 is a great performance bargain. Nothing can touch it at the price. The higher end cards are a bit harder to call, but its definately a toss up between a Radeon 9800Pro and the 5900 ultra. The GeforceFX 5800 is a piece of overpriced junk. To noisy and not quick enough. Ditto the 5600 and the 5200. AVOID!

Either buy a 9500pro/GFti4200 as a low end card or a 9700/9800/pro or 5900 ultra as the high end card.

50Cent

That does make sense alright Ricardo. I just realised that not one single game recommends 128mb memory...

asylum

Need to buy a card but on a tight budget.Had a geforce 2 gts.Is the fx 5200 faster than this.was thinking of getting the Gainward GeForce FX 5200 256MB DDR
AGP, "PRO/680TV-DVI",Tv-Out, Retail .Is this card any good only play the odd game so not sure what to get.

Raz

Originally posted by Drazhar
Well, the second thing i was on about, the voltage, definately want to check that. I think a few newer cards wont let you boot up if they detect 3.3v AGP port.

Or maybe that might be newer boards and older 3.3v AGP cards

The old AGP2x sockets ran at 3.3V while the newer AGP4x 1.5V and the newest AGP8x runs at 0.8V. The newer motherboards will detect which type of card you have and run it accordingly. I may be off on the 8x voltage value but that's basically how it works.

Keith@modified

Originally posted by MisterAnarchy
I bought a 64Mb Sapphire Radeon 9100 off Komplett for €80.
It is the best Graphics card under €100 by a bit.
Its basically a souped up 8500 which this time last year was Radeons top card.
It can push the 4200 close in most tests and is unbelievable value .
The 128Mb version isnt worth the extra money as the performance gain if any is negligible.

True the 9100 is basicly a 8500 but...

The 9100 is actualy an underclocked 8500

Gpu runs @ 250mhz & Memory @ 230mhz

The 8500 ran both @275mhz

They scaled down performance in comparison to the 8500 to save on production cost's.

PHB

Is there any advantage to picking Nvidia over ATI or the other way around, besides the actual quality of the carD?
Like driver support etc.?

Keith@modified

I currently have a NVidia based card myself and the Detonator drivers are constantly updated,

I cannot comment first hand on the ATi drivers having not had an ATi card since the Rage 128 but from what I have read on other boards it is one of the reasons that sway people to NVidia.

I would definitly go for a Ti 4200 rather then a Radeon 9100.

But in saying all that depending on how much cash I had I would look at what NVidia and ATi cards had on offer and buy the best. There is no point staying loyal to a brand and buying second rate hardware.

MrPinK

The Rage 128 was also the last ATi card I ever had and I swore I'd never get another after the driver fiasco I had with it. It be fair tho, they seem to have gotten their act together in recent times. I know a lot of ppl with Radeons who have very had any driver problems. I've been nvidia for years now, but the next card I get will probably be an ATi

Adrian

I have read 3 great reviews of the fx 5200 128mb
The other low end Gforce gfx cards only surpass it in a couple of tests and when you overclock it it leaves the others for dead the msi comes with a heatsink unlike a few of them which would not be to great to overclock but the sparkle and msi cards are excellent

Its a load of ballz

CivilServant

Originally posted by 50Cent
So there is a difference then. One has lower clock speeds. The other has not. the pro version of the Radeon series is a good deal better than the non-pro. 9700 Pro is A LOT better than the 9700.

Well actually there's not much difference between these 2 except for the €100 price tag. The 9700 can be overclocked to pro speeds without too much hassle.

RicardoSmith

Personally I think that ATI still have issues with their drivers in particular with older games. I had a 9000Pro for a while and had as much trouble with the drivers as I did with older ATI cards. So for I'll stick with Nvidia. I've never had a problem with their drivers.

Adrian

Originally posted by CivilServant
Well actually there's not much difference between these 2 except for the €100 price tag. The 9700 can be overclocked to pro speeds without too much hassle.

But the radeon 9700 pro can be overlclocked further than the 9700. so the 9700 pro is far better