StarDestroyer.Net BBS

My friend wants a graphics card that is fairly decent and under the price range as said in the title. I cannot tell the difference between which card is good or not and I need your help on that matter.

Thanks,
Jason

Here's what I found at newegg.com:

edit: see Paloma's post for a better Radeon card

_________________________________________________________


FX5500

Model#: 256-A8-N313
Item#: N82E16814164009

Chipset/Core Speed: nVIDIA GeForce FX5500/270MHz
Memory/Effective Speed: 256MB DDR/400MHz
BUS: AGP 4X/8X
Ports: VGA Out(15 Pin D-Sub)+TV-Out(S-Video)+DVI connector
Support 3D API: DirectX®9, OpenGL®1.4
Cable/Accessories: VGA via DVI Adapter, 1 Cable, Driver CD, Manual
Max Resolution@32bit Color: 2048X1536@60Hz]

$94.50

Free FedEx Saver Shipping



I'm going to assume that Free FedEx Saver Shipping actually means free shipping. If not, you can skewer my dick.

Newegg rocks ass. They've got a Radeon 9600 for 96 bucks and free shipping. There might be tax, but since your buddy lives in NY (I assume), I'm pretty sure there won't be. While I've never had a 9600, one reviewer said he got it to replace his 4200 Ti, which I used for years (and a friend of mine still does), and was an awesome card. So if this can replace that, I'd say it's pretty great.

I noticed that they both have different numbers for openGL, what is the difference if any that it does?~Jason

Soontir C'boath wrote:I noticed that they both have different numbers for openGL, what is the difference if any that it does?~Jason

Simply, OGL 2.0 has more features than previous versions, just like DirectX9 has more features and tech than DX8.

9600 is fine, 9500 is better if you can find it. 9100 is good, too at a lower price point (be sure to avoid the 9000 and 9200 like the plague).

When did OGL2 officially come out? I thought it was still vaporware, with the equivalent features still in non-core extensions

Geforce FX 5200 costs $99. One of the only 128 MB cards for under $100 (though factor in tax...I'd get it off compgeeks.com, excellent prices, you'll probably get it for $80).

Praxis wrote:Geforce FX 5200 costs $99. One of the only 128 MB cards for under $100 (though factor in tax...I'd get it off compgeeks.com, excellent prices, you'll probably get it for $80).

That card is a disgrace. I wouldn't pay $40.

IIRC, Newegg now has a warehouse somewhere in the Northeast, so you might have to pay sales tax.

Arthur_Tuxedo wrote:9600 is fine, 9500 is better if you can find it. 9100 is good, too at a lower price point (be sure to avoid the 9000 and 9200 like the plague).

9100 is functionally idenctical to the 9000 and the 9200, only difference is memory and the AGP interface.

http://www.compgeeks.com/products.asp?c ... 0-%20128MB

Some sweet prices on 128 MB cards, fairly well known reseller. Radeon 9200SE 128 MB for $53, Geforce FX 5200 128 MB for $59.


BTW What's so bad about the FX 5200? It performs well on my system.

A friend of mine with an Athlon 64 FX-51 and a 256 MB FX 5900 (yes, I hate the 5900 too) only got a couple times better score than me even though his processor is way better and graphics card is way better as well.

Praxis... WTF?! has he even updated his drivers or used AGP8x?!

The Kernel wrote:

Arthur_Tuxedo wrote:9600 is fine, 9500 is better if you can find it. 9100 is good, too at a lower price point (be sure to avoid the 9000 and 9200 like the plague).

9100 is functionally idenctical to the 9000 and the 9200, only difference is memory and the AGP interface.

I was led to believe that the 9100 was an upgraded version of the 8500, which is far superior to the crap-tastic 9000 and 9200.

Praxis wrote:BTW What's so bad about the FX 5200? It performs well on my system.

My GeForce 3 Ti200 performs well on my system, too. The point is that a GeForce 4 Ti4200 can be had for about the same price, and will spank a FX5200 six ways from Sunday.

Arthur_Tuxedo wrote: I was led to believe that the 9100 was an upgraded version of the 8500, which is far superior to the crap-tastic 9000 and 9200.

Nope, their all based on the same core.

Pu-239 wrote:When did OGL2 officially come out? I thought it was still vaporware, with the equivalent features still in non-core extensions

It never did come out. Its still vaporware.

Try to find one that has the memory working on 128 bits. Most of these cards work on 64 bits to lower the price and the performance penalty can not be compensated by more memory. On all the tests I have seen a card with 128 Mb ram and 128 bit memory performed better than a card with the same GPU , 256 RAM but memory on 64 bits.

Vertigo1 wrote:

Pu-239 wrote:When did OGL2 officially come out? I thought it was still vaporware, with the equivalent features still in non-core extensions

It never did come out. Its still vaporware.

Well the functionality still exists in the form of extensions, right (which is why decent Linux games require nVidia due to the use of nVidia extensions?)?

Pu-239 wrote:When did OGL2 officially come out? I thought it was still vaporware, with the equivalent features still in non-core extensions

A big part of it (the GLSL) is available as an extension, but it's not fully supported by any card yet as far as I know. I suppose maybe the new batch of ATI and Nvidia cards might.

Ace Pace wrote:Praxis... WTF?! has he even updated his drivers or used AGP8x?!

I thought it was a bit weird, I know.

His score was about 3 times faster than mine, but less than half of numbers I usually see for that kind of system in PC World.

I got over 1600, he got 5000, on 3d Mark. Both are horrid scores for the systems involved (I have a P4 with 800 mhz bus and HT, 2.6 GHz, he has one of those purdy Athlon 64's).

5000 isn't bad, just nothing compared to the new generation. I think your comparing benchmarks to PC's with 6800's and X800's.

Arthur_Tuxedo wrote:

Praxis wrote:BTW What's so bad about the FX 5200? It performs well on my system.

My GeForce 3 Ti200 performs well on my system, too. The point is that a GeForce 4 Ti4200 can be had for about the same price, and will spank a FX5200 six ways from Sunday.

Well yeah, the Ti4200 was the highest end Geforce4, the FX 5200 is the lowest end FX. The FX 5200 has the advantages of DX9 though, so can do better special effects. But...is the TI4200 REALLY the same price? Last time I checked prices was when I bought mine a while back, but I remembered the Ti costing more.

Praxis wrote:Well yeah, the Ti4200 was the highest end Geforce4, the FX 5200 is the lowest end FX. The FX 5200 has the advantages of DX9 though, so can do better special effects. But...is the TI4200 REALLY the same price? Last time I checked prices was when I bought mine a while back, but I remembered the Ti costing more.

The FX 5200 cannot do DX9 at any acceptable frame rate, the DX9 on it is worthless, its just not fast enough.

The TI SHOULD cost more, but now that its 2 generations back, it should hit 50$ max.

Praxis wrote:

Arthur_Tuxedo wrote:

Praxis wrote:BTW What's so bad about the FX 5200? It performs well on my system.

My GeForce 3 Ti200 performs well on my system, too. The point is that a GeForce 4 Ti4200 can be had for about the same price, and will spank a FX5200 six ways from Sunday.

Well yeah, the Ti4200 was the highest end Geforce4, the FX 5200 is the lowest end FX. The FX 5200 has the advantages of DX9 though, so can do better special effects. But...is the TI4200 REALLY the same price? Last time I checked prices was when I bought mine a while back, but I remembered the Ti costing more.

Guess again, buddy; the Geforce 4 Ti series included the Ti4200, 4400 (which I personally own), and the 4600. Nvidia then later released newer models of those cards designed to work with 8X AGP.