video card

nahmed2003 said:

Hello, my onboard video card sucks, im deciding to buy a new one. can anyone suggest a good video card under $100? and also the best plug-in. thank you in adcance. ciao

Click to expand...

You can easily pick up a TNT2 card for $40 or a GeForce2 card for ~$80. Those cards work well with any of the D3D or OpenGL plugins.

Hi,

buy a RADEON9000 card ! I think you can get a non pro card for 99$.

buy

Buy Asus GeForce 4 Titanium 4600 128mb ddr ultra deluxe
:n64: :happy: :holiday:

Dead man, don't be stupid.

oke oke

oke oke just joking ill be good from now on..:saint:

Buy a GeForce 2 pro. Maybe a GeForce 3 card. At my first posts I recommended the Matrox Parhelia. Sorry. I've found some benchmarks and i've seen this card is crap. A GeForce 2 MX is faster! A GeForce 2 pro is the best (price/prestations).

Jabo's direct 3D 1.5 is the best (Graphics) plugin.


Read this first before buying!!! Much computers with a onboard videocard (like intel i815) haven't got an AGP slot! You can't change this card. If you want the fastest PCI card (your only option if you haven't an AGP) you have to search for a voodoo card.

supergamer said:

Read this first before buying!!! Much computers with a onboard videocard (like intel i815) haven't got an AGP slot! You can't change this card. If you want the fastest PCI card (your only option if you haven't an AGP) you have to search for a voodoo card.

Click to expand...

umm... actually the Intel i815 does have support for external AGP slot - it's the i810/i810E that don't.

generally the best pci card out there are between the ATI Radeon 9000 / GeForce4 MX 420 - still reasonable for working with n64 emulation......... the Voodoo5 5500 PCI is also another option, but it's still quite expensive, and outdated if you are working outside of emulation as well

i've seen GeForce3 Ti 200's for less than $90 now, and GeForce4 Ti 4200's have been on the cheap as well - if you have a replacement AGp slot that is

hi i'm new

I just updated my computer for gaming. I have a ATI all in wonder 128 card and an intel 2.4ghz processor on a VIA p4pb(?) motherboard. Anything i throw at it runs perfectly. I can play n64 and psx with absolutly no problems.:baaa: :baaa: :baaa: :baaa: :baaa:

I also notice intel processors emulate games much better than AMD's

Upgrading memory will improve performance a little. (don't buy, ask everyone if they have spare memory)

just curious

hey churnopol, you use the rage 128 chipset! what video plugin do you use, glide64 or jabo's?

go to www.dealnews.com and there should be a $100 deal on a gf4 ti4200 64mb. it's $130, but $100 after $30 rebate.

Re: hi i'm new

churnopol said:

I have a ATI all in wonder 128 card and an intel 2.4ghz processor on a VIA p4pb(?) motherboard. Anything i throw at it runs perfectly. I can play n64 and psx with absolutly no problems.:baaa: :baaa: :baaa: :baaa: :baaa:

I also notice intel processors emulate games much better than AMD's

Upgrading memory will improve performance a little. (don't buy, ask everyone if they have spare memory)

Click to expand...

Point #1: the old ati cards suck. They are plainly crap. The newer raedons are good, though.

Point #2: Don't start the intel vs. amd discussion again...there's no diffrence between them in the emulation scene.

Point #3: Upgrading memory helps quite a bit if you're low on it. If you have about 256 mb, it helps a little to upgrade to 512 mb. If you're lower than that, it would be a good choice to get more.

1. The old ati cards are old, they're not crap. of course they suck now, they were released in the generation of the TNT 2! And it was pretty damn fast for that time, although it was beat by the TNT2 Ultra.

Companies don't engineer crap for their top-of-the-line cards (again, at the time). Just because Project64 is one of the best, doesn't mean that it is perfect, and doesn't mean that if a card doesn't work with PJ, then its crap.

I spent a lot of time coaxing my Rage to play with PJ. And it worked. i also had a hell of a good time playing UltraHLE on that system, which i had before PJ ever existed. So don't call it crap. :angry:

my old card works fine but my processor does all the work. This card isn't old yet (it's still sold for $115, ATI hasn't scrapped this card yet) but it wont compare to the newer cards. Since I have such a fast cpu, 2.4ghz, my vga card isn't a performance priority anymore. I used to have an AMD 850mhz cpu and n64 emulation was impossible for me

zAlbee: the old ati range is crap. was crap, and always will be crap.

Companies don't engineer crap for their top-of-the-line cards (again, at the time). Just because Project64 is one of the best, doesn't mean that it is perfect, and doesn't mean that if a card doesn't work with PJ, then its crap.

Click to expand...

Man thats funny. And, its wrong aswell. Think sis, Cyrix,or even the last voodoo gfx cards. you get my point.

Even when the were first released they were slow. And, so what if the were released with the tnt2? the tnt's sill trounced them, didnt they?

churnopol: Your cpu isnt that fast. You are right though, the cpu does all of the work.

When it comes to emulation, as long as you have a sufficiantly fast cpu, even a tnt2 is more than enough

Alright. If you would like to be anal. Cyrix and SiS make value products. ATI, Nvidia and 3dfx make performance cards (in addition to value cards). These last 3 companies put their best product out for their topline. Get it?

Even when the were first released they were slow. And, so what if the were released with the tnt2? the tnt's sill trounced them, didnt they?

Click to expand...

Uh no. Rage Fury is about the same as the TNT2, except in OpenGL where Nvidia wins, and 32-bit colour where ATi wins.

When it comes to emulation, as long as you have a sufficiantly fast cpu, even a tnt2 is more than enough

Click to expand...

Well i certainly hope so, since N64 emulators were first running on 333 MHz machines with TNT's.

anal? lol

hmmm. what was it you said?

Companies don't engineer crap for their top-of-the-line cards

Click to expand...

show me a decent performing cyrix cpu for the money - bet you cant.
also, do you recall the sis graphics cards? crap wernt they? But, they were still top of sis's line-up, were they not?
the same rules apply for any ati card older than the 700,8500 ect.

Well i certainly hope so, since N64 emulators were first running on 333 MHz machines with TNT's.

Click to expand...

oh yes of course, thats right, they could also run n64 games without any loss in speed, couldnt they?

get real, just because it runs, doesnt mean its playable.

EDIT: also, tom's hardware did a review back when they could be trusted:

http://www6.tomshardware.com/graphic/99q4/991008/fury-05.html

Isnt it funny that the ati rage 128 doesnt beat the standard tnt2 in one single test? even in 32bit directX? admittedly its close in a few tests, but TROUNCED (just like i said) in the rest.

sigh. i don't know why i'm continuing this. they're OLD technologies. you were on one bandwagon, i was on another. but i don't like my words being twisted, so here are 2 things:

1) I already clarified my stance in my last reply. That the 3 companies ATi, nvidia, 3dfx were the companies that i implied to make good products. i have already agreed with you that cyrix and sis make "value" products, ie. cheap stuff. i'm not saying they're good at all.

2) i WAS basing my words on the TH review. If you want to get technical:

Shogo 640 -- TNT2 wins by 0.1 fps
Shogo 1024 -- TNT2 wins by 2.9 fps
Shogo 1600 -- Fury wins by 0.1 fps

Expendable 640 -- TNT2 wins by 0.5 fps
Expendable 1024 -- Fury wins by 7.1 fps
Expendable 1600 -- Fury wins by 6.3 fps

Expendable 640 (32) -- Fury wins by 0.1 fps
Expendable 1024 (32) -- Fury wins by 11.2 fps
Expendable 1600 (32) -- Fury wins by 7.3 fps

Q3A 640 -- Fury wins by 0.3 fps
Q3A 1024 -- TNT2 wins by 9.8 fps
Q3A 1600 -- TNT2 wins by 3.7 fps

Q3A 640 (32) -- TNT2 wins by 3.7 fps
Q3A 1024 (32) -- TNT2 wins by 5.6 fps
Q3A 1600 (32) -- TNT2 wins by 2.1 fps

Descent3 DX7 640 -- Fury wins by 4.3
Descent3 DX7 1024 -- TNT2 wins by 1.6
Descent3 DX7 1600 -- Fury wins by 0.3

Descent3 GL 640 -- TNT2 wins by 20.2
Descent3 GL 1024 -- TNT2 wins by 20.5
Descent3 GL 1600 -- TNT2 wins by 6.9

So TNT2 kicks Fury's ass in Descent3 Open GL. but then descent looks like it has compatiblity problems - matrox and 3dfx DON't run, while ati couldn't keep up the speed. whatever. take what you want from that.

Q3 seems like more of a typical Open GL game. All the cards ran, and nvidia still wins, but not by a crazy 20 fps. In Expendable, ATi wins. That says to me that they average out pretty equally, but if you choose to let descent represent your typical OpenGL game, then nvidia is trouncing ATi in GL, but averages to being better by a little.

Sorry about the 333+TNT thing, i was making a sarcastic stab at you. But in all seriousness, 450 MHz can play very smooth UltraHLE when you have a card like the Rage Fury (which i say is equal, and you say is worse, than the TNT2.)

In any case, I can't believe you made me spend like 10000 years typing that out. Peace dude.

erm - im sorry to say you are looking at the rage fury pro (which used 2 rage fury 128 gpu's) . lol

you SHOULD be look at the rage fury 128 (the one below it). now what do the benchies say?

lol 10,000 years? and you still got it wrong. now that truly is funny

well then you and i are simply talking about different video cards then. can we agree on that!