StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Which one is better?

I'd go for the GeForce, even though it's going for twice as much US$. IIRC the Radeon 9200 does not have full Direct X 9 functionality. The GeForce also seems to do better in the benchmarks. The Radeon 9200 seems to be more comparable to the GeForce 5200, whereas the GeForce 5700 seems to be more of a competitor with the Radeon 9600.

The FX, unlike the 9200 can atleast play some games today.

They still both suck. get a 9600Pro.

I've got an FX5700. The only thing so far it hasn't run at playable levels is FEAR. It even does an admirable job with BF2, considering it's min-spec.

Getting either of those cards (especially the 9200) now would be madness unless it's for someone who has no interest in games. The 5700 might play most current games fine at marginal settings, but you'd just have to upgrade again in 6 months. A decent card for slightly more will last 18 months to 2 years before needing replacement. Penny wise and pound foolish, really.

After consulting the The definitive video card performance thread,

Laughable
Now these are even worse than crap. They're an insult to the market.
GF FX5600XT/SE
Radeon 9600SE
Radeon 9200SE
GF FX5200 Be very careful with FX5200 cards. I have seen SDRAM based cards which are so painfully slow that an old GF2MX would make them look silly.
GeForce4MX 420 - I had a Voodoo3 which ran faster than this.

Were as the 5700 rates at worse aweful to average (depending on the exact version).

Thanks. I am not looking to get a FX5700. I wondered how it stacked up with my 9200se.

Thanks for the info but I have another question, overall which is better ATI or Nvidia?

What kind of a deal can you get on the FX5700 LE? It would be a significant step up from a 9200 SE, but unless you're getting a super deal, you could take a much bigger step up for a little bit more cash.

Enigma wrote:Thanks. I am not looking to get a FX5700. I wondered how it stacked up with my 9200se.

Thanks for the info but I have another question, overall which is better ATI or Nvidia?

Pick a budget, and then we can talk.

ggs wrote:

Enigma wrote:Thanks. I am not looking to get a FX5700. I wondered how it stacked up with my 9200se.

Thanks for the info but I have another question, overall which is better ATI or Nvidia?

Pick a budget, and then we can talk.

You got that right. I tend to think NVIDIA's offerings are little better at the $300 price point, and possibly at $400, but both of their super-high-end cards are just way expensive. If money is no issue, then NVIDIA has a slight performance edge at this time.

Darth Quorthon wrote:

ggs wrote:

Enigma wrote:Thanks. I am not looking to get a FX5700. I wondered how it stacked up with my 9200se.

Thanks for the info but I have another question, overall which is better ATI or Nvidia?

Pick a budget, and then we can talk.

You got that right. I tend to think NVIDIA's offerings are little better at the $300 price point, and possibly at $400, but both of their super-high-end cards are just way expensive. If money is no issue, then NVIDIA has a slight performance edge at this time.

I am looking to soon spend upwards of $150 on a card. Maybe an FX5900 or higher?

A GeForce FX5900 at $150 (I assume US dollars here) would not be too bad, but you might be able to get an ATI Radeon 9800 PRO or possibly a 9800 XT at nearly the same price (from what I see on Pricewatch). The Radeon 9800 would definitely be the better buy IMO.

With a $150 budget, I'd get a Geforce 6600GT. It would be faster than a Radeon 9800 Pro or GeForce FX5900.

While we're on the topic:

Obviously, I need to upgrade my card soon, which I plan to do after Christmas when I have some money. My system is unfortunately in need of multiple upgrades, so I'm not sure what would be the most effective route to take at this point. I'm considering just saving up for an entirely new system. Assuming a $300 budget, give or take $50 (USD), what would be the best upgrades to make (or just save up)? Bear in mind video card in the priority issue here.

• Older Intel-based mobo, just AGP (no PCIe)
• 1 GB DDR PC2700 RAM (all slots taken, upgrading would mean removing a 256 stick)
• GeForce FX5700LE
• 80GB HD w/ 8MB cache
• 340 watt PSU (a little concerned about this, is it enough juice for modern cards?)
• Unidentified Soundblaster card - it is obviously not the Live! 5.1 that's supposed to be in there. Not knowing sound cards well, I think it is a lesser Live! version.
• P4 2.53GHz

RedWizard wrote:With a $150 budget, I'd get a Geforce 6600GT. It would be faster than a Radeon 9800 Pro or GeForce FX5900.

I had no idea the 6600 had dropped so low.

Brother-Captain Gaius wrote:While we're on the topic:

Obviously, I need to upgrade my card soon, which I plan to do after Christmas when I have some money. My system is unfortunately in need of multiple upgrades, so I'm not sure what would be the most effective route to take at this point. I'm considering just saving up for an entirely new system. Assuming a $300 budget, give or take $50 (USD), what would be the best upgrades to make (or just save up)? Bear in mind video card in the priority issue here.

On a $300 budget... Personally, I would just save up, because if you decide to go for a new motherboard and cpu, then chances are you'll need new memory, which would leave you with next to nothing for the videocard. However, I think it's safe to stick with AGP for the time being, but almost all the the high-end cards coming out now are PCI-E. A compromise might be to find a faster P4 that would still work on your motherboard, and then spend the rest on a videocard. Since PCI-E seems to be storming the market and AGPs days appear to be numbered on the ultra-high-end cards, I'd wait and then go for a full-blown motherboard/cpu/videocard/memory upgrade (I did). Most motherboards coming out today have pretty good onboard audio, so unless you absolutely must have an audio add-in card, I wouldn't spend extra money on one. But if you just want to spend the $300 on a card, you might be able to land an ATI Radeon x800 xt, which is a pretty good card, and would give you a significant boost over the GeForce 5700.

Edit: PC Gamer recommends a 350W power supply (500W for dual videocards), so you should be Ok, unless your PSU is older or a no-name brand.

Near the $150 price point, there are some clear winners (I'm assuming you're using AGP here), the 6600 GT for $148, and the 9800 Pro for $126. Of the two, the 6600 GT is better (some call it slightly better, some call it significantly better).

If you're using, PCI-E, you have some higher-end choices available to you. There's the plain vanilla X800 at an unbeatable $107, the X800 GTO for $139, and the 6800 non-ultra for $144. Any of these are much better than a 6600 GT. The best deal here is the X800 GTO if you don't mind doing a BIOS flash (X800 GTOs are identical to plain vanilla X800s except that they have a high success rate in unlocking pipes and flashing to imitate pricier cards), otherwise the X800 vanilla is a real steal. However, the 6800 non-ultra will be the fastest card out of the box, and the 6800 series has a much better feature set than the X800 series, making it more future-proof. Anyway, this is most likely all moot, since you probably have AGP, but I post it anyway for the benefit of others.

Brother-Captain Gaius wrote:While we're on the topic:

Obviously, I need to upgrade my card soon, which I plan to do after Christmas when I have some money. My system is unfortunately in need of multiple upgrades, so I'm not sure what would be the most effective route to take at this point. I'm considering just saving up for an entirely new system. Assuming a $300 budget, give or take $50 (USD), what would be the best upgrades to make (or just save up)? Bear in mind video card in the priority issue here.

• Older Intel-based mobo, just AGP (no PCIe)
• 1 GB DDR PC2700 RAM (all slots taken, upgrading would mean removing a 256 stick)
• GeForce FX5700LE
• 80GB HD w/ 8MB cache
• 340 watt PSU (a little concerned about this, is it enough juice for modern cards?)
• Unidentified Soundblaster card - it is obviously not the Live! 5.1 that's supposed to be in there. Not knowing sound cards well, I think it is a lesser Live! version.
• P4 2.53GHz

Everything in that rig is perfectly servicable except the video card. The processor may be old, but the advancement in processor speed over the last couple of years has been pathetic, almost non-existant. 1 gig of RAM is perfectly fine for right now, and so is a 340 W PSU. If you're not tearing out your hair about only having 80 gigs of HD space, and you can live with the quality of sound, then I'd just replace the video card and leave the rest. Replacing that GeForce FX crapwagon with a 6600 GT should breathe new life into the system.

I'd personally stray from Creative products for new soundcards, btw - Chaintech AV710 are fairly inexpensive and have a good reputation on head-fi. Anything with an Envy chip is well recommended at music, although Creative products deal better with games, their preminium in price and their lackluster music abilities annoy.

Edit: To clarify, the new X-Fi series may solve the Audigy's distortion problems however it is expensive, needlessly so.

Thanks for the tips. I'll probably binge on a 6600GT and another hard drive, then.

Enigma wrote:I am looking to soon spend upwards of $150 on a card. Maybe an FX5900 or higher?

In general, the FX5xxx series from Nvidia fucking sucks.

For $150 you should look at a 6600gt or maybe a 6800 if you can get it cheap.

Arthur_Tuxedo wrote:Near the $150 price point, there are some clear winners (I'm assuming you're using AGP here), the 6600 GT for $148, and the 9800 Pro for $126. Of the two, the 6600 GT is better (some call it slightly better, some call it significantly better).

For DirectX8 games it is only slightly better.

For DirectX9 games it is a significantly better due to vastly superior shader preformance.

Thanks for the info and I agree from looking here and some ads that the 6600 would be good to get. Also I do use AGP and not PCI-X.

Also why are PCI-X vid cards cheaper than AGP? Another question is, is the PCI-X a standalone video card slot or are such cards can be installed on PCI slots?

PCI-E (PCI-X refers to some laptop slot or something) cards are cheaper because they are being produced in higher volumes, as far as I know. You can't use a PCI-E card in a PCI slot.

Enigma wrote:Thanks for the info and I agree from looking here and some ads that the 6600 would be good to get. Also I do use AGP and not PCI-X.

Also why are PCI-X vid cards cheaper than AGP? Another question is, is the PCI-X a standalone video card slot or are such cards can be installed on PCI slots?

There are two types of PCI express slots: PCI-Ex16 and PCI-Ex1. PCI-Ex16 slots have the x16 bandwidth available to them, and are designed for video cards. The PCI-Ex1 slots are x1 bandwidth, and as far as I know no peripherals have been made yet for these slots. On a PCI-E motherboard, the PCI-E x16 slots are really long, and they have two of them in case you want to run dual videocards. The PCI-E x1 are really short. And yes, you need a PCI express motherboard if you want to run a PCI express videocard.

My only guess as to why AGP cards are more expensive may be because they are becoming more scarce, as both ATI and NVIDIA are slowly phasing out AGP, because it has a x8 bandwidth and PCI-E has x16. Maybe it costs more to produce AGP cards now that this bus is being phased out.

Edit: Cleared up where I mixed up PCI-Ex1 and PCI-X

First off;

• PCI
• PCI-X
• PCIe

Are all different.

PCI is the old crappy slot. PCI-X is a last gasp of breath to extend the PCI slot format (basicly only seen on servers).

PCIe is completely new and is not compadible with PCI/PCI-X.

Graphics cards primarily come in PCIe(new stuff) and AGP(old stuff). PCI/PCI-X graphics cards just suck and should be ignored.

AGP prices are going up because they arent produced in volume, were as PCIe is.