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

Toshiro · Post by **Toshiro** » 21 Mar 2006, 04:59

DAYUM. My 6600 was $120!!!!

Jmac- · Post by **Jmac-** » 21 Mar 2006, 12:17

Stereo wrote:I've had a change of plans to upgrade from a FX5200 to a GeForce 6200 256MB. I'm on a budget of $60 and the 6200 for $55 is the cheapest best thing I could find. =) I think it will make a HUGE improvement.

Yeah, the 6200 is a huge improvement over the FX5200 ... Over twice as fast ... which isn't to say the 6200 is fast; it just proves what a POS the FX5200 was

Jmac- · Post by **Jmac-** » 21 Mar 2006, 12:18

PSZeTa wrote:They are the sux if you want to play the latest games with reasonably high settings, you're better off buying a 7 series because the 6600GT doesn't pack enough punch anyway for the latest games, and the 7600GT is actually dead cheap for how it performs.

6800GS is a better value than the 7600GT, especially when you take overclocking into consideration ...

@ $100, the 6600GT makes a great value for those looking for decent performance without spending mucho coin ...

Jmac- · Post by **Jmac-** » 21 Mar 2006, 12:21

Toshiro wrote:Well, his Ping read like 10, whereas mine read 22......

Low FPS is not lag? That's like saying Most Wanted is lagging on me because I'm not connected properly (which I am).

Just because he has a good ping, it doesn't mean he doesn't get choke or loss ...

Post by **Pabl0z** » 21 Mar 2006, 13:01

Well if you have a low ping but get choke or loss you should check your rates.
If they're ok... The server sucks or needs a reboot.
I haven't played CS:Source but i bet the same rates work just as well with it as with CS 1.6.
I have rate 25000, cl_cmdrate 101, cl_updaterate 101 (the CPL rates).
Of course if you have a slow connection you should drop those values a bit.

The Gravedigger · Post by **The Gravedigger** » 21 Mar 2006, 13:06

Jmac- wrote:6800GS is a better value than the 7600GT, especially when you take overclocking into consideration ...

Sure it might be... but do remember the 7000series runs at half that of it's predecessor

So sure, you might be saving money.... but, you'll be missing a nice amount of power thanks to the 6800GS

PSZeTa · Post by **PSZeTa** » 21 Mar 2006, 17:22

Jmac- wrote:
PSZeTa wrote:They are the sux if you want to play the latest games with reasonably high settings, you're better off buying a 7 series because the 6600GT doesn't pack enough punch anyway for the latest games, and the 7600GT is actually dead cheap for how it performs.
6800GS is a better value than the 7600GT, especially when you take overclocking into consideration ...

@ $100, the 6600GT makes a great value for those looking for decent performance without spending mucho coin ...

Decent isn't going to be decent anymore in upcoming games. The 7600GT eats less power than the 6800GS, performs better and isn't much more expensive.

Toshiro · Post by **Toshiro** » 21 Mar 2006, 22:46

I need money for a new GFX Card.

Stereo · Post by **Stereo** » 21 Mar 2006, 23:17

Jmac- wrote:
Stereo wrote:I've had a change of plans to upgrade from a FX5200 to a GeForce 6200 256MB. I'm on a budget of $60 and the 6200 for $55 is the cheapest best thing I could find. =) I think it will make a HUGE improvement.
Yeah, the 6200 is a huge improvement over the FX5200 ... Over twice as fast ... which isn't to say the 6200 is fast; it just proves what a POS the FX5200 was

If it's more than twice as fast, then I'm definetly buying it no doubt.

@Toshiro: Personally, I think a 6600 will keep you alive and well these days.

PSZeTa · Post by **PSZeTa** » 22 Mar 2006, 00:47

Stereo wrote:
Jmac- wrote:
Stereo wrote:I've had a change of plans to upgrade from a FX5200 to a GeForce 6200 256MB. I'm on a budget of $60 and the 6200 for $55 is the cheapest best thing I could find. =) I think it will make a HUGE improvement.
Yeah, the 6200 is a huge improvement over the FX5200 ... Over twice as fast ... which isn't to say the 6200 is fast; it just proves what a POS the FX5200 was
If it's more than twice as fast, then I'm definetly buying it no doubt.

You are still wasting your money?

It's twice as fast but it's still crappy. Take some time in saving some money, it's not like you should buy a GFX card every 6 months.

Post by **Pabl0z** » 22 Mar 2006, 01:44

So i just got my new pc a month ago... I bought my last gfx-card before this almost 3 years ago and it was old even then

.
But it's still a good card. Ti4x00 series kicks ass

.
I agree with PsZeTa.
Save some more money...

Stereo · Post by **Stereo** » 22 Mar 2006, 03:49

Uhh PZ... All I get in a YEAR is $60... What the heck do you expect me to do? Stay with an ancient GFX card for 5 years so I can get a 7800? The 6200 is the best deal I've seen in my life... (No its not eBay...)

EDIT: I'm not so obsessed with gaming like some of you here. I don't NEED the best performance and all that uber-pro stuff. All I want is a system that runs games fine. Personally, I would love to get a 7800GTX and a 3.4GHz processor, but it's just not worth it for me...

Post by **Pabl0z** » 22 Mar 2006, 04:28

But the 6200 won't run games fine.
It sucks. Just not as bad as your current card.
And if you only get 60$ GET A JOB.
If you won't.. don't whine.

PSZeTa · Post by **PSZeTa** » 22 Mar 2006, 08:01

Stereo wrote:Uhh PZ... All I get in a YEAR is $60... What the heck do you expect me to do? Stay with an ancient GFX card for 5 years so I can get a 7800? The 6200 is the best deal I've seen in my life... (No its not eBay...)

EDIT: I'm not so obsessed with gaming like some of you here. I don't NEED the best performance and all that uber-pro stuff. All I want is a system that runs games fine. Personally, I would love to get a 7800GTX and a 3.4GHz processor, but it's just not worth it for me...

You do know that the 7800 won't cost shiznit anymore after 5 years? It's not like the prices rapidly go up when new series are introduced, they will stay the same.

Stereo · Post by **Stereo** » 22 Mar 2006, 13:41

I had to stay with a damned GeForce2 for 4 years, and then I bought the FX5200... I thought it was a HUGE improvement, and now I'm buying a 6200 thats like 3x better...

PZ, like I told you, I dont think the 6200 is a POS... I'm not the kind that NEEDS games up to full max settings. Why the hell do you think the 6200 won't run fine...
Tell you what, people can go buy the 7800, and shove it up their a** if they think that the 6200 sucks... Seriously.

Pabl0z, take a (chill|pill)...

BTW, my friend has a FX5700 Ultra with a PIII 700MHz, and his games don't lag at all on medium settings. Proves that the 6200will be better.........

PSZeTa · Post by **PSZeTa** » 22 Mar 2006, 14:14

Stereo wrote:I had to stay with a damned GeForce2 for 4 years, and then I bought the FX5200... I thought it was a HUGE improvement, and now I'm buying a 6200 thats like 3x better...

3 times better than a POS = A bit better than a POS = Waste of money.

Stereo wrote:I'm not the kind that NEEDS games up to full max settings.

If you aren't, have fun with your FX5200 then. You don't need max settings.

Stereo wrote:BTW, my friend has a FX5700 Ultra with a PIII 700MHz, and his games don't lag at all on medium settings. Proves that the 6200will be better.........

Tell me what games and I'll think about it.

Post by **Pabl0z** » 22 Mar 2006, 14:26

Stereo wrote:BTW, my friend has a FX5700 Ultra with a PIII 700MHz, and his games don't lag at all on medium settings. Proves that the 6200will be better.........

Haha, what games?
And I think the 6200 is worse than the 5700 Ultra...
But with that CPU he can't even run new games!
I don't see the point in buying that sort of a card because the moment you get it you will have to play most of the new games at almost bare minimum settings so it won't "lag" If you even have a good enough CPU to run them.
I would never buy any of the cheapest cards on the market because there is no point.
It's outdated the moment you get it.
It'll only be good for playing games that are at least a year old, probably not even for them..
But hey, you can spend your money on everything you want.
I'm just telling you my opinion about it.

Ps. I have a 4200+ amd64 X2, 7800GT, 2gig of ram and i still can't play some of the newest games with AA & AF on without them lagging at some point.
You seem to have no idea what some of the newest games need to run properly.

Stereo · Post by **Stereo** » 22 Mar 2006, 23:21

...

I'm just buying it...

My friends games are Halo, WoW, and MU-Online.
I have the same games but they lag, cause of the FX5200. Sometimes Warcraft III freezes up and I have to exit a perfect multiplayer game....
Seriously, what the hell is so bad about upgrading from a FX5200 to a 6200?

PZ: I can live without max settings, but I can't live with lag... Even on medium settings most of my games lag... To me, the 6200 isn't a POS... What I call a POS is the Geforce2 series and anything under Radeon 9200...

Post by **Pabl0z** » 22 Mar 2006, 23:45

Do as you please...
I'm just telling you that you won't be playing new games with even medium settings without them lagging.
Unless you play some games with really low requirements.
But the games you said your friend is playing aren't really new.
(I'm wondering why in the hell does your friend have such a crappy CPU compared to the gfx...)
Many games that have come out lately require at least a 2ghz cpu, 512gb ram, a dx9 128mb gfx-card.
And that's just for playing them at minimum settings.

For example (and this is not even a REALLY new game):
Black & White 2:
I played it with my last pc (the 2600+, 512mb ddr, (the gfx card was't dx9))..
I had every gfx setting on the minimum and right away when there was just a little bit of action on the screen it lagged...
And the game took forever to load.
So if you for instance have the same cpu as me, the same amount of ram and that 6200.. You can probably play it at the minimum settings without lagging.

Lagoon Bug · Post by **Lagoon Bug** » 23 Mar 2006, 16:02

I think it's not just your hardware, it's also how the games are programmed. I used to use my dad's Dell Dimension computer, I forgot the specs, but 512 MB of RAM and some integrated 128MB video card that it came with. It ran Grand Theft Auto 3 and Vice City on full settings. No problem really. Then came Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, major problems there. That game was just poorly programmed for performance, that much is known among GTA gamers. Also some games seem to be made to last in the market, theoretically, by being optimized for tomorrow's computers(the effect can also be annoying gamers and turning them away). The makers of Doom 3 admit to this in a DVD featurette for the Doom movie. So keep that in mind and just be happy with your PC.

Now I have my own computer, a Dell XPS Pentium dual core 2.4GHz or whatever and a gig of RAM and a 256MB Nvidia GeForce 6800 card. Same thing with the GTA games, but San Andreas still has problems. And Need for Speed Underground 1 and 2 run flawlessly. I sometimes imagine having 2 gigs or more of RAM and dual 512MB video cards, but much like those multi thousand dollar set ups, it's probably not worth it and will be yesterday's news in a couple years anyways.

Next time I get a computer, I'd probably prefer a dual core Athlon 64 bit etc, top of the line for whenever that will be. Unless something better is around. Probably won't be a Dell unless they decide to use Athlon.

weedman173 · Post by **weedman173** » 23 Mar 2006, 21:57

Actually for San Andreas on my computer it runs completely flawless, but thats cause I got a computer with quad SLI, so in that case its your computer not progamming.

PSZeTa · Post by **PSZeTa** » 24 Mar 2006, 01:13

Quad SLI..? WTF.. :')

It even runs flawless on my 6800GT.

xHaZxMaTx · Post by **xHaZxMaTx** » 24 Mar 2006, 01:36

weedman173 wrote:Actually for San Andreas on my computer it runs completely flawless, but thats cause I got a computer with quad SLI, so in that case its your computer not progamming.

Envy...

Toshiro · Post by **Toshiro** » 24 Mar 2006, 01:45

San Andreas has TERRIBLE graphics.

xHaZxMaTx · Post by **xHaZxMaTx** » 24 Mar 2006, 01:49

But it's a fun game! You get to drive around AND shoot people!