53 replies to this topic

[binky]

I am running windows xp pro. right now i have a GF4 MX440. i really don't want to spend over $150. what would be a good graphics card in that price range that would be good for me to get. so if you have any ideas for me please post. i was thinking about a radeon 9600 SE. but the only problem with that is that it is a 32-bit and all the new ones are 64-bit. if i got a OS that was 64-bit when they come out i would be screwed in a sense. so please post i want to get one soon. :praise:

[thing]

Binky I think you might be confused over the 32 and 64 bit thing...that's OS and you can use current vid cards on both....in fact I'm not sure what you mean saying that a vid card is 32 bit in the first place??? (I'm ready to be enlightened, though). The big thing that I understand will be happening Feb/March next year is the move to PCI Express with more than twice the bandwidth of AGP. But this will not only cost you around the $500 mark, you will also need new mobo (might as well get one of those FX-53 then as well then plus a gig of the certified memory it requires whilst you're at it rofl). No doubt Doom III will be put back even further to allow for this new development, and Half Life 2's code will once again be mysteriously hacked to save Valve the embarressment of admitting that it's not ready (ho-hum).

For now the 9600 SE would be good. Could you push the envelope a bit and try for a 9600 XT?? That would be a great upgrade. I've moved from nVidia and never regretted it. 3dmark 2001 se is 21,524, 2003 is 7,812. Great for gaming (gotta use all that grunt for something, right?)

[binky]

Anybody else have any input?

[Jito463]

GeForceFX 5600/5600 Ultra is a decent one. Not sure if you can find te ultra under your price limit, but I'm sure if you shopped around you could find it. But even the non-ultra is a pretty decent card for the money. As for thing, I just have to ask which drivers he's using? Because different drivers bring different results in 3D Mark. Case in point? Note that the guy with the 2GHz system and only 512MB of RAM has a 1 point higher score than the guy with 3GHz and 1GB of RAM (plus he overclocked his video card). However, the 2GHz guy has non-WHQL drivers (read, not the default ones from nVidia's website). Interesting how newer drivers than the release of 3D Mark suddenly boost performance that much. And Ati is no different. Just my two cents worth on the matter.

CPU: Intel Pentium 4 2023 MHz
GPU: NVIDIA GeForce FX 5900, 300 MHz / 900 MHz
OS: Microsoft Windows XP
System Memory: 512 MB
Disp Driver: 5.3.0.3
3DMark Score: 5543


CPU: Intel Pentium 4 2993 MHz
GPU: NVIDIA GeForce FX 5900, 300 MHz / 946 MHz
OS: Microsoft Windows XP
System Memory: 1022 MB
Disp Driver: 5.2.1.6
3DMark Score: 5542

[binky]

Keep em' coming...

[zamiel]

I like NVidia due to their support. I don't care about the minute difference in FPS when your talking in the 100's.

[binky]

first good thing I think I have ever read from you zamiel...lol

[zamiel]

I'm still waiting for yours

h0h0

[thing]

As for thing, I just have to ask which drivers he's using?  Because different drivers bring different results in 3D Mark.  Case in point?  Note that the guy with the 2GHz system and only 512MB of RAM has a 1 point higher score than the guy with 3GHz and 1GB of RAM (plus he overclocked his video card).  However, the 2GHz guy has non-WHQL drivers (read, not the default ones from nVidia's website).  Interesting how newer drivers than the release of 3D Mark suddenly boost performance that much.  And Ati is no different.  Just my two cents worth on the matter.

CPU: Intel Pentium 4 2023 MHz
GPU: NVIDIA GeForce FX 5900, 300 MHz / 900 MHz
OS: Microsoft Windows XP
System Memory: 512 MB
Disp Driver: 5.3.0.3
3DMark Score: 5543


CPU: Intel Pentium 4 2993 MHz
GPU: NVIDIA GeForce FX 5900, 300 MHz / 946 MHz
OS: Microsoft Windows XP
System Memory: 1022 MB
Disp Driver: 5.2.1.6
3DMark Score: 5542

Jito, I'm using the 3.10s, it's all there in my sig m8! I haven't benchmarked with these yet, the scores I quoted were using the 3.9 catalysts.

Anyway, the results you pasted are for the 3Dmarks 2003 benchmark, which is primarily a test of you DX9 vid card, and NOT the rest of your system, as opposed to 3Dmarks 2001 which is HEAVILY dependent on just about everything in your b0x3n.

Jito you are completely correct that drivers can make huge differences in these benchmarks. I am sure everyone must remember that nVidia were caught red-handed cheating with their drivers forcing lower textures (or something) and hence higher scores in the futuremark benchies. They did the same thing to improve performance in the UT2K3 and Q3 benchies too. I think that all the cheats have now been ironed out, though.

Oh, and note how absolutely crap the nVidia cards perform in the 2003 test compared with ATi. Their DX9 cards don't cut the mustard. My score is nearly 8000 they can't get near 6000.

Edited by thing, 28 December 2003 - 03:16 AM.

[zamiel]

I think it comes down to personal preference a lot. Its like the AMD vs intel thing. As long as you can pull a decent frame rate so games don't slow down, who cares if it benchmarks 250+ FPS in Q3.

[Jito463]

thing, you didn't read all my post. Ati does the exact same thing. There just hasn't been any hullabaloo about it on their side yet.

[BigTy]

If you go Nvidia i will personaly hunt you down and shoot you with a spit ball. ATI 9600xt or 9600pro. take your pic. both are overclocking mosters and well they just simple rock.

[binky]

anybody else

[zamiel]

Spitball? don't you mean furball?

binky go with what ever you can afford at the time. Over here the NVidia cards are generally cheaper so you can get more bang for your buck. Futureproofing your GFX card purchase is pointless as the life span of the mid to lower range cards gets shorter and shorter everytime a new game is released that requires just that extra bit more.

Doom 3 will hurt us all.

[binky]

Doom 3 will kill us all.

[BigTy]

your talking about a game i personaly am NOT looking forward to.

[thing]

thing, you didn't read all my post. Ati does the exact same thing. There just hasn't been any hullabaloo about it on their side yet.

Jito, I thought I had, never mind lol. I seem to remember that Ati have not been caught out by blatant cheating...I think they revealed that they had made some sort of optimisation before they were caught red-handed!

As for the driver issue, I read an article a month or so ago which reviewed and compared all the catalyst drivers. Performance-wise there was very little difference between them all. One good thing about the 3.10s is that Call of Duty doesn't crash anymore! The story with nVidia drivers seems to be different, every time they bring a new set of dets out they claim a 33% performance increase...

Anyway, Jito, I've got this strange compulsion to go off and play Max Payne 2 now.... I wonder why?

[binky]

more

[zamiel]

The story with nVidia drivers seems to be different, every time they bring a new set of dets out they claim a 33% performance increase...

Hahaha, True however in saying that when many games come out ATI uses generally have to wait for their new drivers that fix their problems or even just make the game go. Take NFSU and NWN as a couple of examples. NVidia on the otherhand either go or theres something out by the end of the week. Depends if you like to wait too

Edited by zamiel, 29 December 2003 - 11:54 PM.

[thing]

Yes Ati are slower but they did release a hot fix for the Call of Duty problem after the game had been out about a month...