Videocards.. which to buy and whatnot.. simply videocards!

donaldgladden · Post by **donaldgladden** » 04 Jan 2006, 03:44

Cpt.Razkit wrote:@ Donaldgladen: OK... Let me get this straight... You say the card that I ordered is crap, but you may want to buy it? wtf?

I'll be sure to get screenshots of some of the games that I have... Im going to go buy some games after I get ithe 6600LE working...

Possible games:
Farcry
BF2 Expansion
HL2
COD2

once i see the screenshots lol

you think im that confusing? aheh

korge · Post by **korge** » 04 Jan 2006, 03:47

Jmac- wrote:
korge wrote:I dont reccomend running fraps because that program is generally, sht. I would run it in te background of Underground 2 and I would get very good performance but the FPS would show numbers like 5 and 10. I think FEAR has a built in command to let you view FPS and so does HL2.
I've never had that problem with FRAPS ...

There are better methods than running a second program that takes up memory.

And I own a 6600 and it is a very good card. It isnt the best, but it isnt the most expensive.

Jmac- · Post by **Jmac-** » 04 Jan 2006, 08:10

I realize that using the built-in fps meter is a better option, but every time I've run FRAPS in a game with one, it's been right on par with the game's fps meter ... Nor have I ever had it show 5 fps with smooth gameplay ...

EuroRacer · Post by **EuroRacer** » 04 Jan 2006, 14:35

I agree with Jmac, Fraps always shows me the right framerates. When I run Fraps while doing a 3dMark benchmark, the framerates of 3dMark and fraps are almost the same (+/- 2fps). I only use fraps for games that haven't got a function to show framerates though, cuz I still prefer the in-game option...

R34GTR · Post by **R34GTR** » 06 Jan 2006, 19:28

Ok, i have a question, me and a friend were discussion our GFX cards. He has an FX5200 128, i have a Radeon 9250 128, i think mine is better, he thinks he is, i know they're are pretty similar.

So can someone tell me which is the best, because i actually have both

P.S I want a non-biased answer, so don't say nVidia just because you have one

Post by **Pabl0z** » 06 Jan 2006, 20:02

I couldn't find any test results between the two cards but i found a couple of forums where 2 guys have asked the same question.
In the first forum about 80% of the people that replied said the 9250 is better and on the other forums it was the other way around

.
So i really have no clue which one would be best.

spartan.dk · Post by **spartan.dk** » 06 Jan 2006, 20:18

I was just wondering, playing MW would be hell with my computer, am I correct?

Intel Pentium 3 - 733 MHZ
ATI Radeon 9200
256 RAM

Post by **Pabl0z** » 06 Jan 2006, 20:45

spartan.dk wrote:I was just wondering, playing MW would be hell with my computer, am I correct?

Intel Pentium 3 - 733 MHZ
ATI Radeon 9200
256 RAM

Not gonna happen

vellu · Post by **vellu** » 07 Jan 2006, 00:01

spartan.dk wrote:I was just wondering, playing MW would be hell with my computer, am I correct?

Intel Pentium 3 - 733 MHZ
ATI Radeon 9200
256 RAM

Minimum specs being:

* CPU: 1.4 GHz or faster
* RAM: 256 MB or more
* Video card with 32 MB or more memory and one of these chipsets is required: ATI Radeon 7500 or greater; ATI Radeon Xpress 200; NVIDIA GeForce2 MX/GTS or greater; Intel 950/i915g; S3 GammaChrome S18 Pro

it might not work at all.

donaldgladden · Post by **donaldgladden** » 07 Jan 2006, 00:05

regarding the which is better. i think nVidia fails in the small gfx card catagory and Radeon kills in the small catagory. if you 2 end up trying to figure out which is better a 6800 or a 850XT you'll know which is better.

Jmac- · Post by **Jmac-** » 07 Jan 2006, 02:33

R34GTR wrote:Ok, i have a question, me and a friend were discussion our GFX cards. He has an FX5200 128, i have a Radeon 9250 128, i think mine is better, he thinks he is, i know they're are pretty similar.

So can someone tell me which is the best, because i actually have both

P.S I want a non-biased answer, so don't say nVidia just because you have one

Can't say which one because, even within the model, the specs can vary wildly ... My friend had a Chaintech FX5200 that was running 270 MHz core and 333 MHz 32-bit memory (Can you say OUCH ?) whereas Nvidia's reference FX5200 uses 270 MHz core and 400 MHz 64-bit memory ...

Same can be said about the 9250: some of them have 64-bit memory, some have 128-bit memory, some have lower clocks, etc.

So, unless you can give us a make/model, we can't really say which is faster ...

However, if your 9250 has 128-bit memory, you can rest assured that yours is better ...

PS: Nvidia is better because I own a Nvidia card ...

Cpt.Razkit · Post by **Cpt.Razkit** » 11 Jan 2006, 05:40

I finally got my GFX Card working... Here are a few screenies for someone who wanted to see the gfx...

donaldgladden · Post by **donaldgladden** » 11 Jan 2006, 15:20

im guessing 41 max is a good but alomst slideshow like gameplay. do you have any
Gameplay shots? a soon as i get these formats of Halo screenshots changed ill let you witness teh powah!

Jmac- · Post by **Jmac-** » 11 Jan 2006, 21:22

41 fps max is terrible ... Although you should probably turn off AA and AF with that card on that game ...

2furio · Post by **2furio** » 11 Jan 2006, 22:33

Jmac- wrote:41 fps max is terrible ... Although you should probably turn off AA and AF with that card on that game ...

41 is not terrible in general but it is terrible that he had an average of 18 FPS. That's barely playable...is it even playable?

Jmac- · Post by **Jmac-** » 12 Jan 2006, 05:58

The key word in my sentence was MAX ...

Cpt.Razkit · Post by **Cpt.Razkit** » 12 Jan 2006, 07:32

Yea it works fine, no glitches... It isnt slow... I have to mess with the settings more to get a good FPS while still getting the game to look good...

SKYLINE 266 · Post by **SKYLINE 266** » 23 Jan 2006, 03:51

I have a AMD athlon 2400 + with 512 DDR 333 ram , Asus motherboard ( i forgot the model ) And a oldest G-force 2 mx 400 with 64 mb and 64 bits.
I think on change the mother for any new and better , with da possibility of put an PCI-E Video card , i think in a 6800 ultra , because now it is not too expensive than the few cards and still a excellent card with awesome overclock possibilities.
On a determinate moment of the day ( With my machine want to), i am playing MW and it start runing too bad , very very & very slow ( think in 4 fps

) and thatÂ´s cause the ram is over and my poor card donÂ´t have da needed power to run in perfect conditions the MW . I donÂ´t know ,MW or my computer eat the ram, it is delicious her tell that to me every times

!!!! I has to rewind the machine and run the free ram XP pro for recover the RAM ... but it will stop soon ( When i buy a new Video card an motherboard of course

)
But ... donÂ´t forget i win the UG 1 game with an oldest mmx pentium 2 processor , 384 mb ram , scsi hard drive , and da same v-card i still have , and a QDI mother , this machine have more than 9 years old !!

Jmac- · Post by **Jmac-** » 23 Jan 2006, 08:33

How much is the 6800GS there ? It should be a lot cheaper and it's almost on par with the much more expensive 6800GT ...

Post by **Pabl0z** » 23 Jan 2006, 14:41

Jmac- wrote:How much is the 6800GS there ? It should be a lot cheaper and it's almost on par with the much more expensive 6800GT ...

It's only a little bit worse than the 6800GT but if you overclock the 6800GS by only 10% it will be better than the 6800GT in most games.
And many manufacturers sell the card with programs for overclocking.
At least over here (Finland) the 6800GS's cheapest price is about 200â‚¬/$ and the lowest price for the 6800GT is about 250â‚¬/$~.
I was going to buy the 6800GS because it's a great card for it's price, but i'm gonna put in about a 100â‚¬ more to get a 7800GT.

SKYLINE 266 · Post by **SKYLINE 266** » 25 Jan 2006, 02:07

i can get it at 250 dollars here

prince1142003 · Post by **prince1142003** » 07 Feb 2006, 02:42

hey, my old graphics card just gave out, so i have to get a new one. i've got $200 that i can use, and i've narrowed it down to two cards. they're both priced nearly the same. so, here they are:
ATI Radeon X700 Pro
ATI All-In-Wonder 2006

My system specs are:
AMD Athlon 64 3000+ at 2.20 GHz
1GB DDR RAM
400 Watt PSU
ASUS K8N MoBo with only AGP slots (I need the PCI slots for other things)

i just want to know which one among those two cards would be better for me. note, that i use my computer for purposes other than just gaming. what i'm worried about is which card has the least bottleneck on my PC.

any ideas?

korge · Post by **korge** » 07 Feb 2006, 02:46

Cpt.Razkit wrote:Yea it works fine, no glitches... It isnt slow... I have to mess with the settings more to get a good FPS while still getting the game to look good...

How is it run so bad? I ran it near max and it ran great on mine, Dont we have same cards?

Jmac- · Post by **Jmac-** » 07 Feb 2006, 02:49

prince1142003 wrote:hey, my old graphics card just gave out, so i have to get a new one. i've got $200 that i can use, and i've narrowed it down to two cards. they're both priced nearly the same. so, here they are:
ATI Radeon X700 Pro
ATI All-In-Wonder 2006

My system specs are:
AMD Athlon 64 3000+ at 2.20 GHz
1GB DDR RAM
400 Watt PSU
ASUS K8N MoBo with only AGP slots (I need the PCI slots for other things)

i just want to know which one among those two cards would be better for me. note, that i use my computer for purposes other than just gaming. what i'm worried about is which card has the least bottleneck on my PC.

any ideas?

The 6600GT owns the X700 Pro and costs a lot less than $180 (I really hope you're not buying from Circuit City) ... and the 6800GS costs only a little more than the 6600GT and pretty much walks all over everything under $200 ATM ...

As for the AIW 2006, I have no idea what GPU it uses ...

Post by **Pabl0z** » 07 Feb 2006, 03:10

The 6800GS would be too good for the 3000+.
I myself would go for the 6600GT if i wasn't going to OC the CPU.