[$threadinfo[title]]

[badbooks]

i'm in the market for a video card. All i have right now is intel graphics and it doesnt cut it.

my emulator is glitchy in sound and graphics and i wouldnt mind the ability to play new computer games.

whats the best value. i dont want to go over the top, just get the job done.

[Martin]

Take a look at the Ati Radeon 9600 PRO, they're very inexpensive ($150?) now and I'd say it's the best price vs. performance card right now.

[pandamoan]

i'm in the market for a video card. All i have right now is intel graphics and it doesnt cut it.

my emulator is glitchy in sound and graphics and i wouldnt mind the ability to play new computer games.

whats the best value. i dont want to go over the top, just get the job done.

a cheap sound card as well may help your emulation.

none of the audio plugins currently available run that great on the "onboard sound" that it looks like your specs are describing.

that $10 can help alot.

for video, if it's emulation only you're interested in, i'd get a geforce 4 ti (~$79). for the price it will do alot.

if you want to play doom 3 and half life 2 though, i'd get a radeon 9600 (~$145).

however, since those games aren't out yet, justifying that price might be hard.

all prices from:
http://www.pricewatch.com/

[Hexidecimal]

My opinion is, get the 9800SE, its about the same price, and you can softmod it to a 9800Pro.

[flow``]

personally an nvidia 5700 ultra..

ati catalyst series started out good, but boy have they really went stagnant or gotten worse the past 4-5 releases

on the other hand.. :D nvidia's have gotten considerably better the past few revisions (coming back to their 'golden' status)

[Clements]

I'd go with the nVidia 5700 Ultra too (If I hadn't got my 5600 :P), as it would work wonders in emulation (PSX and N64 in particular) if that's 'your bag'. The Radeon 9600 Pro/XT probably beats it in Half-Life 2 so if you liked the original Half-Life and enjoy 'X-TREME' PC gaming more get that.

[Tagrineth]

personally an nvidia 5700 ultra..

ati catalyst series started out good, but boy have they really went stagnant or gotten worse the past 4-5 releases

on the other hand.. :D nvidia's have gotten considerably better the past few revisions (coming back to their 'golden' status)

They've only gotten better in terms of the Cg compiler.

Nothing more.

Their trilinear filtering hacks still exist, btw.

[jollyrancher]

I just checked Ebay and you can get a Geforce 4 Ti4200 for $63... you've got 4 hours to bid... and that should get the job done.

[cooliscool]

Brand loyalism is a bitch *(hint hint)* :gunman:

My Apollo GF4 mx440 6mb DDR is not a bad card at all. I'm running pj64 @ 1024x768x3 quincunx FSAA with NO slowdown whatsoever. It's not a bad OCer either. It's @ 400/405 (core/mem MHz) from a stock 325/350. The only thing I wouldn't recommend these cards for is EXTREME pc gaming, such as Half Life 2 or Doom 3, which many others here have already stated. :)

[flow``]

They've only gotten better in terms of the Cg compiler.

Nothing more.

Their trilinear filtering hacks still exist, btw.

can i ask you to comment/defend the ati/half life issue? or ati and about any opengl game out there?

recently the call of duty issue.. http://www.ati.com/support/infobase/4291.html , the radeon AIW opengl issues, and the "new improved!" control panel

it's a shame to even read look here ( http://rage3d.com/board/forumdisplay.php?forumid=59 ) at all the issues and complaints

[Tagrineth]

I don't have any problems with any of my OpenGL games.

and I was only attacking nVidia's driver, not defending ATi's.

Notice that when I attacked nV's, you didn't even try to defend your statement? All you did was attack back.

[AlphaWolf]

I don't have any problems with any of my OpenGL games.

and I was only attacking nVidia's driver, not defending ATi's.

Notice that when I attacked nV's, you didn't even try to defend your statement? All you did was attack back.

Well, at least the nvidia drivers are compatible with EVERYTHING. As an owner of both ATI and nVidia cards, I haven't had any technical problems with nvidia cards...they "just work" perfectly out of the box. My ATI cards' drivers have a few features that don't work right, such as anisotropic filtering without having to enable FSAA, aside from the problems with half life and opengl in general. Hell, don't take my word for it, read the rage3d forums.

[Tagrineth]

Well, at least the nvidia drivers are compatible with EVERYTHING. As an owner of both ATI and nVidia cards, I haven't had any technical problems with nvidia cards...they "just work" perfectly out of the box. My ATI cards' drivers have a few features that don't work right, such as anisotropic filtering without having to enable FSAA, aside from the problems with half life and opengl in general. Hell, don't take my word for it, read the rage3d forums.

Eh? I don't have a problem enabling AF without AA. One driver set wouldn't allow me to enable either of them, but anyway...

...3dfx cards also worked right out of the box at the time.

It isn't because their drivers are perfect, it's because the bloody devs are coding the games around the drivers' bugs, hence making nV's drivers SEEM perfect.

[flow``]

[QUOTE=Tagrineth]They've only gotten better in terms of the Cg compiler.

Nothing more.QUOTE]

Sorry, but your wrong - http://download.nvidia.com/Windows/52.16/ForceWare_Release_50_graphics_drivers_Re lease_Notes_v0.2.v52.16.pdf

happy now?

[AlphaWolf]

It isn't because their drivers are perfect, it's because the bloody devs are coding the games around the drivers' bugs, hence making nV's drivers SEEM perfect.

Then why is it that on blizzards tech support page for WC3, they list 6 issues with ATIs drivers, and nvidias they only listed one minor one? I figure they would "code around" all of these bugs for the first release, wouldn't they?

[blizz]

the reality here is that PC's are shit for gaming and that all those companies should only make console games :P

[Eagle]

the reality here is that PC's are shit for gaming and that all those companies should only make console games :P


The reality is that console games are shit and they should just make PC games.

[Tagrineth]

Then why is it that on blizzards tech support page for WC3, they list 6 issues with ATIs drivers, and nvidias they only listed one minor one? I figure they would "code around" all of these bugs for the first release, wouldn't they?

Easy, more nVidia bugs were worked around than ATi ones.

You can't code around absolutely any bugs, though.

For the best example of bug-evasive coding practices, check out C&C: Renegade.

Oh, and by the way, http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=8926

[blizz]

The reality is that console games are shit and they should just make PC games.

they do! for the X-Box ;) :P

[AlphaWolf]

Easy, more nVidia bugs were worked around than ATi ones.

You can't code around absolutely any bugs, though.


Wait, so which is it? They code around all but one nvidia bug, and leave six ATI bugs intact? Why not just code around every nvidia bug while your at it? And IIRC two of these ATI bugs were showstoppers (e.g. prevented the game from working,) why not code around these bugs? Could it be that the ATI drivers are just buggier?

[blizz]

funny thing is you guys bitch so much about the drivers but don't take into account how difficult it is, you've got to code so that crappy games must work with your new revision plus you've got to make sure you support the standards for those "proper" games which do things sensibly.

of course they're never going to be 100%

[fivefeet8]

They've only gotten better in terms of the Cg compiler.

Nothing more.

Their trilinear filtering hacks still exist, btw.

I could show you 2 identicle shots. One which uses Full Trilinear and one with the Psydo bi/tri filtering and you probably wouldn't be able to tell the difference. For most people, they aren't going to be able to tell the difference. Even most hardware review sites which recently did some IQ comparisons say the difference is so nominal it gets subjective.

Of course I do think nvidia should atleast provide users the option to use Full Trilinear. But I think Nvidia's current stance on this issue is that most users aren't going to see a difference. Full Trilinear filtering works fine in OGL games btw.

There is one thing you seem to have missed about Nv's af though. In earlier dets(44.xx), 8xAF per application was broken. 8xAF application was really using 2xAF. But with the newer 50.xx drivers, 8xAF per application actually works. Of course like you said, the psydo bi/tri filtering is still there and is now even more optimized in d3d.

[AlphaWolf]

funny thing is you guys bitch so much about the drivers but don't take into account how difficult it is, you've got to code so that crappy games must work with your new revision plus you've got to make sure you support the standards for those "proper" games which do things sensibly.

of course they're never going to be 100%

Well, when you pay $200 for a video card, you should at least expect it to work. Same goes for the games, when software companies charge $50+ for each of em.

[vampireuk]

Well, when you pay $200 for a video card, you should at least expect it to work. Same goes for the games, when software companies charge $50+ for each of em.

Buy ATI then, it works and they havn't cheated and tried to bullshit their way out of a paper bag for the past year ;)

My 9700 pro works like a dream, the same could not be said for the reference 5200 Ultra I recieved. NVIDIAs drivers are picking up but they have a long way to go before they regain peoples trust.

[AlphaWolf]

Buy ATI then, it works and they havn't cheated and tried to bullshit their way out of a paper bag for the past year ;)

My 9700 pro works like a dream, the same could not be said for the reference 5200 Ultra I recieved. NVIDIAs drivers are picking up but they have a long way to go before they regain peoples trust.

You know, I don't like either company, I think they both piss me off. ATI has been cought cheating just as badly as nvidia ever has, and even the ATI fanboy forum thinks their drivers are buggy. Nvidias cards have sub-par image quality and waste power on laptops. The only thing I am doing here is dispelling the rumors that the fanboys/girls are spreading about one brand being totally superior to the other.

So far as speed is concerned, I realy don't care. The fastest video card is always a ripoff. I only go for whoever gives the best overall card for $200. IMO, anybody who goes for a specific brand is just a fanboy.

[pandamoan]

You know, I don't like either company, I think they both piss me off. ATI has been cought cheating just as badly as nvidia ever has, and even the ATI fanboy forum thinks their drivers are buggy. Nvidias cards have sub-par image quality and waste power on laptops. The only thing I am doing here is dispelling the rumors that the fanboys/girls are spreading about one brand being totally superior to the other.

So far as speed is concerned, I realy don't care. The fastest video card is always a ripoff. I only go for whoever gives the best overall card for $200. IMO, anybody who goes for a specific brand is just a fanboy.

i have to agree 100% with alphawolf here.

both companies have disgraceful track records as far as integrity goes.

i'm cheaper though, so i aim for about $150... :)

and vampire, there's evidence of cheating on the new ati drivers as of 3 days ago. i read about it on tom's hardware.

both companies refuse to "do the work" by making good products (and good drivers!) and instead keep trying to short cut each other into a lead role.

it's pathetic. i may buy an xgi when they come out.

[Trotterwatch]

i have to agree 100% with alphawolf here.

/me checks to see if Hell has frozen over :P

[fivefeet8]

Nvidias cards have sub-par image quality and waste power on laptops. The only thing I am doing here is dispelling the rumors that the fanboys/girls are spreading about one brand being totally superior to the other.


Generally, IQ on Nvidia products and ATi products are comparable. ATi has better quality FSAA, but ATi's FSAA doesn't AA everything. Plus Nvidia has a lot more FSAA options. Some of which do compare very well against Ati's FSAA quality wise. Nvidia's AF seems to be a little better though. Especially in certian angle viewing situations. Most of the people who have both an NvidiaFX card and Ati Radeons say that IQ is comparable on both. Again, it's not one cards IQ totally dominating the other.

The current FW 52.16 video drivers have been found to contain a lot more FSAA options for the FX cards then before. Using the newest Rivatuner along with the 52.16 dets, these FSAA options have been found. Some are new and undocumented, some are old:

old modes enabled:
FSAAMode12 = 4x 9tap
FSAAMode05 = 4x Super Sampling
FSAAMode16 = old 6x
FSAAMode18 = old 8x
8xS-d3d/ogl
12x-d3d
16x-ogl

new unknown modes:
FSAAMode01 = mystery horizonal SS?
FSAAMode02 = mystery vertical SS?
FSAAMode0C = mystery SS mode?
FSAAMode14 = mystery texture filter
FSAAMode0A = StarStorm Quality

These new modes were found by the users of FX cards by editing the Rivatuner config file.

As far as synthetic benchmark cheating goes, both companies do it. Using anti detects with Nvidia/Ati cards, the Game 4 Nature benchmark in 3dmark2k1se runs at a much less FPS on both products. With the newest 52.16 dets, it seems Nvidia may have gotten rid of the cheat for the Game4 nature test. A lot of Nvidia card users are complaining about dropped framerates/scores in 3dmark2k1se. It's stupid I know, but I see it at every hardware forum. "The 52.16 suck!!! My score in 3dmark2k1se dropped 2000 points!!" Pff.

In my own benchmark testing, the Nature test in 3dmark2k1se did drop in FPS from 140 fps to 100 fps. Lost about 40 fps going from the 44.67 to the 52.16s. Total score in 3dmark2k1se also dropped. But it's a synthetic benchmark which has been Optimized by both companies. Seems that Nvidia may have taken out a few "cheats" from it though.

I don't really care about synthetic benchmarks. I test them only to compare on a driver to driver base. The actual games I've tested are running much better with the current drivers.

Damn. This post is getting too long. :blink:

[Tagrineth]

Wait, so which is it? They code around all but one nvidia bug, and leave six ATI bugs intact? Why not just code around every nvidia bug while your at it? And IIRC two of these ATI bugs were showstoppers (e.g. prevented the game from working,) why not code around these bugs? Could it be that the ATI drivers are just buggier?

nVidia is the market leader, and probably provided a lot of the funding for the game. So of course, given a certain amount of time to code, they're gonna focus more on getting it to work with the "current big thing".

Maybe the remaining nVidia bug was so severe it couldn't be worked around without rewriting large portions of the engine?

And if you spend all of your VERY LIMITED coding time on nV bugs, how're you going to fix all of the other vendors' bugs?

You know, I don't like either company, I think they both piss me off. ATI has been cought cheating just as badly as nvidia ever has, and even the ATI fanboy forum thinks their drivers are buggy. Nvidias cards have sub-par image quality and waste power on laptops. The only thing I am doing here is dispelling the rumors that the fanboys/girls are spreading about one brand being totally superior to the other.

ATi has been caught cheating just as badly? Example please? I'd like to see where ATi was effectively disabling Trilinear filtering without saying anything about it. I'd like to see where ATi was adding clipping planes everywhere the camera wasn't. I'd like to see where ATi b0rked DXTC with a noticeable visual quality loss. Or how about I dig up the list of complaints Valve shot out when the 50.xx dets appeared? They had about 8-10 bullet points of cheats the NEW driver was using in Half-Life 2...

and vampire, there's evidence of cheating on the new ati drivers as of 3 days ago. i read about it on tom's hardware.

Internet rule #1. Never believe anything you read on Tom's Hardware wrt video cards. Pabst has been severely nVidia-biased since THG opened. I can cite examples of very obviously clouded judgment.

both companies refuse to "do the work" by making good products (and good drivers!) and instead keep trying to short cut each other into a lead role.

You really think ATi's R3x0 line isn't a good product? Hell, even nVidia's been known to make good products (GeForce4Ti).

[pandamoan]

ok, sorry, yes i think the current r3x0 product line is solid, however without decent drivers, does it matter?

honestly if the gfx card companies would open source their drivers, it would solve all of this, and ensure more optomized drivers.

it's the hardware we pay for anyway.

and i agree, the nvidia ti line was pretty solid driverANDhardware wise, so..... they both have had moments.

my main point is that they are both cheating in drivers.

they are both releasing all kinds of pointless FUD.

they are both releasing hardware and software that is not especially well engineered or stable (as a combo of hardware and software).

they are both f*@#ing up, and it's time for a third party to kick their asses.

enter xgi.

:)

[AlphaWolf]

Nvidia's AF seems to be a little better though.

I'll have to agree there, when I can get AF to work on ATI cards, it makes this little box with rounded edges surrounding you, whereas nvidias AF is like a perfect sphere that surrounds you...just looks a lot smoother that way. On the other hand, and this is the main thing I was refering to: the overall picture is sharper with ATI cards in 2D.

nVidia is the market leader, and probably provided a lot of the funding for the game. So of course, given a certain amount of time to code, they're gonna focus more on getting it to work with the "current big thing".

Maybe the remaining nVidia bug was so severe it couldn't be worked around without rewriting large portions of the engine?

And if you spend all of your VERY LIMITED coding time on nV bugs, how're you going to fix all of the other vendors' bugs?


Come on, you seriously believe that? That is so far fetched that its bordering on a conspiracy theory. Quit being a fangirl :P


ATi has been caught cheating just as badly? Example please?

Aside from what fivefeet8 just said, you can't forget quaff3.exe (http://www.tech-report.com/etc/2001q4/radeon-q3/index.x?pg=1)

[Xade]

Easy, more nVidia bugs were worked around than ATi ones.

You can't code around absolutely any bugs, though.

For the best example of bug-evasive coding practices, check out C&C: Renegade.

Oh, and by the way, http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=8926

The latest Detonators (ForceWare, whatever) have worked FLAWLESSLY with my very, very powerful graphics card, Tagrineth.

The performance is much improved, and I have no complaints.

As for the guys that do... try... uninstalling... the... old... drivers... first...

*Sigh*

[flow``]

PowerVR Series 5!

[vampireuk]

ATI were caught out and removed the cheats from the drivers, NVIDIA burried them under more lies and tried to keep the "optimisations" in the drivers. Then of course there was the 5800 winning a award for a year it wasnt even released in...but thats going off topic ;)

[fivefeet8]

ATI were caught out and removed the cheats from the drivers, NVIDIA burried them under more lies and tried to keep the "optimisations" in the drivers.

Depends on which benchmarks the optimizations were taken out of by ATi. They definately weren't taken out of 3dmark2k1se as proven by the anti detects. You really have to wonder if a company would cheat once and never do it again. Nvidia is definately optimizing for benchmarks, but so is Ati.

[Tagrineth]

wrt the Quake3 renamed executable thing, that was an accident, a leftover optimisation from Radeon R6.

If it was such a cheat, why did the next driver release look 100% normal and have better performance at the same time? If it was a cheat, the quality reduction would be the CAUSE of the performance increase. Obviously this isn't the case.

Depends on which benchmarks the optimizations were taken out of by ATi. They definately weren't taken out of 3dmark2k1se as proven by the anti detects. You really have to wonder if a company would cheat once and never do it again. Nvidia is definately optimizing for benchmarks, but so is Ati.

I get the distinct impression that ATi doesn't care about 3DMark2001SE any more, they probably don't think it's worth the effort to take that out considering that in an official sense, 2001 is obsolete.

They should take it out, though.

And keep in mind they did take out the ops in 3DMark03, and since then I can't remember hearing anything about ATi cheating in anything at all.

I'll have to agree there, when I can get AF to work on ATI cards, it makes this little box with rounded edges surrounding you, whereas nvidias AF is like a perfect sphere that surrounds you...just looks a lot smoother that way. On the other hand, and this is the main thing I was refering to: the overall picture is sharper with ATI cards in 2D.

Who's the fanperson here? "Little box with rounded edges surrounding you"?

Try these (http://emutalk.net/showthread.php?t=13856&highlight=Beautiful+Radeon) on for size. I don't see anything wrong with that AF.

[DuDe]

No point in blaming AlphaWolf for being a fanboy, he uses a Radeon by himself :)

[Tagrineth]

As an aside, OH MY F*CKING GOD.

http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=8952

Futuremark issues another cheat-busting patch for 3DMark03. Guess what?

nVidia's scores go down. A LOT. ATi's? Same as before.

[AlphaWolf]

wrt the Quake3 renamed executable thing, that was an accident, a leftover optimisation from Radeon R6.


And people here accuse me of trying to beat to death old topics.


Who's the fanperson here? "Little box with rounded edges surrounding you"?

Try these (http://emutalk.net/showthread.php?t=13856&highlight=Beautiful+Radeon) on for size. I don't see anything wrong with that AF.

Two things wrong with those screenshots, and thats that they are too dark and textured to be able to see the seems, and also it isn't feasable to run every game at 16x AF.

What I am refering to specifically is the mipmap. An example is attached. Note how it has that corner - it forms a box like that around you. My nvidia cards form a perfect circle, less noticeable IMO, just looks more natural.

.

[fivefeet8]

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/imagequality2/default.asp

One of the more recent IQ comparisons.

Currently ATI's Method of Filtering, Cannot hit all angles. THis is a hardware Limitation. In a Game like Unreal Tournament 2003, You will very unlikely notice this. However in Bigger games Like MMORPG Such as Everquest, Star Wars Galaxy, Ect, If you look off in the distances, To the right and left, There are areas where no filtering is occuring. This doesn't happen with Nvidia cards as those areas do get filtered.

[Tagrineth]

And people here accuse me of trying to beat to death old topics.

Please tell me where else they've been caught RED HANDED~!111! as bad as nVidia? Hell, nVidia just got caught doing it AGAIN.

Two things wrong with those screenshots, and thats that they are too dark and textured to be able to see the seems, and also it isn't feasable to run every game at 16x AF.

OK... um... wha? The only games that don't run well at 16x AF are UT2003-based games, and even those run fine still.

What I am refering to specifically is the mipmap. An example is attached. Note how it has that corner - it forms a box like that around you. My nvidia cards form a perfect circle, less noticeable IMO, just looks more natural.

Turn the AF on? kthx, that MIP boundary is way too close, there can't possibly be any aniso in that screenshot.

And btw, you're also looking at bilinear filtering which the Radeon R2x0 cards have to use with aniso, which I agree is irritating. I don't have that problem on my 9500P.

[AlphaWolf]

Please tell me where else they've been caught RED HANDED~!111! as bad as nVidia? Hell, nVidia just got caught doing it AGAIN.


What are you talking about? They were cought red handed. How many more red hands do you need?


OK... um... wha? The only games that don't run well at 16x AF are UT2003-based games, and even those run fine still.


Depends on what card you have.


Turn the AF on? kthx, that MIP boundary is way too close, there can't possibly be any aniso in that screenshot.


AF is on, I am not sure if you can tell by the screenshot, but that is a cropped image.


And btw, you're also looking at bilinear filtering which the Radeon R2x0 cards have to use with aniso, which I agree is irritating. I don't have that problem on my 9500P.

Your honor, the defense rests. :D

[Tagrineth]

What are you talking about? They were cought red handed. How many more red hands do you need?

I'm asking for an example. And I think by now nVidia has racked up several pairs of red hands...

Depends on what card you have.

My 9500 Pro does its job well, and it's mid-range.

AF is on, I am not sure if you can tell by the screenshot, but that is a cropped image.

Cropped, heh, that's probably why it's hard to tell, anyway yeah it's bilinear so it's harder to tell.

Your honor, the defense rests. :D

Hey, I never said otherwise wrt R2x0, and that's obsolete anyway, that's like saying "well nVidia's AF is perfect because GeForce3 did full trilinear and biased to a very high degree of aniso at all times", even though the FX line clearly cuts corners.

[AlphaWolf]

I'm asking for an example. And I think by now nVidia has racked up several pairs of red hands...


Already gave an example, and we've beaten that horse to death several fold, its time to let him rest in peace.


Hey, I never said otherwise wrt R2x0, and that's obsolete anyway, that's like saying "well nVidia's AF is perfect because GeForce3 did full trilinear and biased to a very high degree of aniso at all times", even though the FX line clearly cuts corners.

Well, it works fine on my old geforce 2, and ATI still markets the r200 series.

[Tagrineth]

Oh, and AlphaWolf, if you don't believe me about the whole 'programmed around the bugs of the market leader' thing, read this thread (http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=8962).

[AlphaWolf]

Oh, and AlphaWolf, if you don't believe me about the whole 'programmed around the bugs of the market leader' thing, read this thread (http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=8962).

Hmm...problem is that thread is entirely speculation.

[Tagrineth]

Hmm...problem is that thread is entirely speculation.

No, it isn't. OpenGL Guy is an ATi driver engineer.

[AlphaWolf]

No, it isn't. OpenGL Guy is an ATi driver engineer.

Well...


The game is using stencil shadows, which are quite expensive, especially with a lot a lights around. Also, the game does some things that are not optimal for our HW/driver. We're still working with the developer to improve things.


Read, the drivers and hardware just don't work well with the game.

And from what I have read, matrox cards work fine with NWN. *ahem* (http://www.matrox.com/mga/media/artwork/parhelia/screenshots/large/nwn.jpg)

[CyrylTheWolf]

Here is my response to this thread. Since I just posted in another thread on virtually the same topic I will simply quote what I said in the other thread.

Thread:
Poll: which video card are the cheap and fast and good gfx

POST:
*nods*

I concur. The GeForceFX 5200 looks like the card to get right now. It's what I'm getting as soon as I can pull up the funds. (My onboard GF4 MX SUCKS. HORRIBLE memory bandwidth since it's using the system memory...)

But yeah... If it's a damn good card you want for the buck...then the GFFX 5200 is the ticket. Find yourself the MSI version if you can. MSI makes some of the best cards on the market right now. The benchmarks prove it.

Locally for me it's priced at a mere $130. I've seen it running in a lesser system than mine and it 0WNZ my system for graphics. (My system runs damn nice otherwise...)

I'm thinking of selling my server just to get it...it looked so damn good. Heh.. Just a little AMD K6-2 w/256MB PC100. Using it as my dialup server and domain controller. But I know that it'll pull me enough $$$ to get that card... (For which I will feel guilty for not using it to pay some bills later. *shrugs* Oh well.)

*waves two fingers in front of your face and speaks in a calm tone*

You WILL buy the GeForce FX 5200... *grins*


For original post:
http://www.emutalk.net/showthread.php?t=17148

[Tagrineth]

The FX 5200 is one of the worst cards you could buy today.

[AlphaWolf]

Heres something you all should try. Pick a price range that you are willing to spend on a card, then go to pricewatch.com, and index all cards available within that price range (yes, I know the issues with prices listed there, thats why I use the key word "index," think of pricewatch as more of a bluebook.)

Then, start googling around for reviews of all of those cards, and buy the one with the best overall rating in your preferred category (be it extra multimedia features, extra quality, or extra performance, because these are very distinctly different areas.)

If you are somebody who likes to live on the edge a bit, look around for reviews that may show which one of these you can overclock or modify a bit with a good (90% and up) success rate to do more than the card advertizes - trust me you can save a lot of money this way, and it works.

And yes, based on what I have read, the 5200 does suck. In fact, it's price index even suggests that it isn't worth as much as a card of its generation should be - bargain card or not.

[CyrylTheWolf]

Hmm... Based on the opinions of two competent individuals here - I digress. I suppose that it's more than likely that what I saw was just a really well-configured demo... After all it's not like the demo system I saw is subject to constant use and what I call "OS Fatigue". (Which is basically when your OS wears down with constant use.)

Well then since I'm now more than curious enough to ask myself... Tag, Alphawolf... The one thing I haven't kept up in as far as the parts market goes is the video cards. (Everyone right now knows that the FX 5900 is the awesome card right now...unless you're an ATI loyalist.) Why don't you educate me on this particular subject? It's time I caught up. :P

I'm looking for a card that's just a step above the bargain cards in performance. I suppose you could say that I'm after the mid-range card. I won't touch ATI cards due to their constant plague of driver issues. (They even had a recent release that killed several monitors belong to people in other forums that I frequent. Was a big issue I'm sure you know about.) I'm an NVIDIA guy. (Although I admit that their business practices of late have been...somewhat questionable...)

Yeah. I frequent pricewatch myself. And you're right, Alphawolf. They have some issues with the prices. But the numbers don't drift TOO far off so I don't worry so much about it. It's just enough to be annoying, though. *shrugs*

Summary:
NVIDIA + Mid-range price and performance + NO ATI.

Let's see what you two can concur on. It seems that Tag is an ATI person...so I wonder what she'll say about NVIDIA. :)

[AlphaWolf]

If you are wanting to spend in the $100-$150 range, I would suggest either the gfx5600 or the r9600. The r9600 would actually perform slightly better (but I am not sure about the 5600 ultra, it might do better, and it isn't much more), and it will cost you about $20 or so more, but like you mentioned with the drivers, I have issues with them myself. Both of these cards thrash the gfx5200 badly, however the 5200 is available in the $50-$100 range, if you want to go that much cheaper. All cards above the ones I mentioned in this post start going above the $200 range.

There really is no wrong card, its just all about what you want to spend and what you expect the card to be able to do, and IMO the r9600 and gfx5600 are overall well performing cards that aren't expensive.

[CyrylTheWolf]

That seems to be what I've found, actually. Your post is most definitely concurrent with my findings. That sounds like a really good deal, actually... There's only one problem, though. I've been finding that there may be a few general performance issues with the 5600 line. (STILL won't touch an ATI...) I guess you always have to take the good with the bad, though. But the specs are showing to be pretty good. Not to mention that the prices for a 5200 are ridiculous compared to what I've been finding online. I'm lookin' at one of the stores here selling the 5200 for $130. Screw that.

I might have to go ahead and have them get me an MSI 5600 though... Depends on what kind of deal they can give me. (I bargain hard...)

[Tagrineth]

I haven't had any problems with MY ATi card. :|

And people at Beyond3D are convinced that the monitor deaths had to be a fluke, because HOW THE FUCK CAN A VIDEO DRIVER KILL A CATHODE RAY TUBE? Prevailing theory is those monitors were probably wearing out anyway.

[AlphaWolf]

I haven't had any problems with MY ATi card. :|

And people at Beyond3D are convinced that the monitor deaths had to be a fluke, because HOW THE FUCK CAN A VIDEO DRIVER KILL A CATHODE RAY TUBE? Prevailing theory is those monitors were probably wearing out anyway.

It's ok tag...we all lose at least once in our life :D

I hope that the release of CS:CZ may inspire ATI to fix the driver issues with the HL engine though....b/c right now it's as if they simply don't care.

[jollyrancher]

Hey moderators! Is there any way to "sticky" one of these video card threads and merge the others into it... maybe call it "Fanboy Video Card Discussion" or something.

[blizz]

it's like smashing my head against a brickwall.

jolly: don't tell us how to do our jobs :P

[neoak]

ATi Problems with the HL engine? Nonsense. My 9800 Pro works flawlessly with CS.

But again, the card you buy is a personal reason. For example, after the fiasco that Nvidia pulled with the FX5800 (A jet fan inside my PC? No thanks.) i have been more inclined to ATi, as i did with nVidia in the 3dfx days. Now, nVidia has become the Intel of the GPUs, and that is something i don't like.

I bought (well, my dad bought) the 9800 Pro because of the opening of the first CompUSA here in PR. They gave the 9800 Pro at $100 each for two days...

I was thinking of buying a 9500 Pro or a 9600 XT anyway.

Again, is more of a personal taste.

[AlphaWolf]

ATi Problems with the HL engine? Nonsense.

The ATI fanboy forum, rage3d, doesn't agree (http://www.rage3d.com/board/showthread.php?s=&threadid=33724539).

[Tagrineth]

It's ok tag...we all lose at least once in our life :D

I hope that the release of CS:CZ may inspire ATI to fix the driver issues with the HL engine though....b/c right now it's as if they simply don't care.

No, seriously. How can a video card driver kill a CRT? They must've been very poorly made CRT's if a bad signal could KILL them. Can we say no protection or failsafes in the monitor? That's just sad. My 17" OEM Sony CRT with BUILT IN SPEAKERS has lasted me SEVEN YEARS now, and I betcha if I got one of those driver sets famous for breaking monitors, I'd still have no problems. Why? Because my CRT isn't poorly built. This is one solid monitor. It's 17" and matches the spec of most off-the-shelf, decently priced 17" CRT's today (60Hz 1280x1024 realistic maximum - yes, I know high-end 17" CRT's can do much better than that, but not any of the models I ever see at Best Buy).

[neoak]

The ATI fanboy forum, rage3d, doesn't agree (http://www.rage3d.com/board/showthread.php?s=&threadid=33724539).

Oh, you meant Frames per Second. Actually, yes, my Radeon can even get jumpy at 24 or more players in screen. Hmm... Gotta check the Catalyst 3.10 when they are released officially... (i don't wanna compromise the stability of this PC with the betas).

Or even better, check CS with the leaked HL2 engine...



20 November 2003

-=COUNTER-STRIKE 1.6 PERFORMANCE COMPARISON=-
Demo: Match from ESL / mouz.GeForce vs EFF-KULT
Point of view: mouz.GeForce | Johnny R
Map: de_train
Link to demo: http://www.sogamed.com/demos.php?id=13588
Benchmark util: FRAPS 1.9D
Benchmark method: From start of match until end of 5th round (the round where there are a lot of smoke grens).

-+-Results-+- (in frames per second)

Radeon Omega Drivers rad_w2kxp_omega_2496c (Catalyst 3.9)
2003-11-12 12:08:09 - hl
Frames: 51259 - Time: 541209ms - Avg: 94.712 - Min: 44 - Max: 163

Radeon KillerSneak DNA Drivers DNA 1.8.3.9 (Catalyst 3.9)
2003-11-12 12:58:24 - hl
Frames: 65877 - Time: 540788ms - Avg: 121.816 - Min: 55 - Max: 207

Geforce 3 Ti200 @ 210 Core/500 Memory, Drivers series 45.X
2003-11-12 16:14:15 - hl
Frames: 78547 - Time: 543581ms - Avg: 144.499 - Min: 33 - Max: 231

Radeon wxp-w2k-cod-7-96-012324e (Call of Duty Hotfix - Catalyst 3.10 Beta)
2003-11-20 02:28:32 - hl
Frames: 75643 - Time: 540717ms - Avg: 139.893 - Min: 63 - Max: 240

For the first time my Radeon almost reaches my old Geforce 3 Ti200!!!
GREAT JOB ATI!!!

I urge everyone to try these drivers and post the results!!!

Cheers,
Virtualbs

__________________
Asus A7M266 (AMD761+VIA686B) / Athlon XP 2100+ Palomino / Connect 3D Radeon 9500(SoftModded)9700 / SB Live 5.1 (PCI3) / LAN card for 768/128 ADSL connection (PCI5) / Q-tec 550W PSU.

[Xade]

Eh? I don't have a problem enabling AF without AA. One driver set wouldn't allow me to enable either of them, but anyway...

...3dfx cards also worked right out of the box at the time.

It isn't because their drivers are perfect, it's because the bloody devs are coding the games around the drivers' bugs, hence making nV's drivers SEEM perfect.

(Belated reply)

And, of course, Valve aren't coding to, er, 'improve' Radeon performance or anything.

They've even been reported to have signed a secret deal with ATI, etc, etc.

We both prefer opposite companies, clearly, but you often go a little overboard with your nVidia-bashing, Tagrineth.

[Tagrineth]

(Belated reply)

And, of course, Valve aren't coding to, er, 'improve' Radeon performance or anything.

They've even been reported to have signed a secret deal with ATI, etc, etc.

We both prefer opposite companies, clearly, but you often go a little overboard with your nVidia-bashing, Tagrineth.

I bash GeForce FX and the post-NV30 nVidia that likes to run around in little circles like a retarded dog.

And Half-Life 2 runs on Radeons on the EXACT SAME CODE as it uses on XGI Volari (and any other pure DX9 non-NV3x) cards. Radeons run using default API calls only, the GeForce FX on the other hand has had around oh... five times (by Valve's own admission) the optimisation time and... well I'm sure you've seen the performance numbers.

And the "secret deal" isn't exactly secret, ATi paid Valve a bunch of money to win a PROMOTION deal, not to gain favours among the game's programmers.



Added: Oh, and before I forget: That big performance test? Which shows the Radeon 9600 Pro often beating the GeForce FX 5900 Ultra? That build was released to reviewers before the "secret deal" was signed.

Double edit: And just because the nVidia/GeForceFX apologists will probably never believe me when I tell them the FX line completely sucks for DirectX 9 Pixel Shaders (2.0) (which incidentally the Half-Life 2 engine uses very extensively) - http://english.bonusweb.cz/interviews/carmackgfx.html That link contains a response from the very famous nVidia apologist, Mr. John Carmack himself.

[Xade]

Those tests were done before the 52.x drivers, so their use as evidence is slightly unfair. Early estimations give nVidia a large performance boost with the new set.

And which tests was Carmack speaking of? Those at that pre-52 shamble of an ATI-fest? Uh-huh. Point made. Valve + ATi = best friends... etc... Carmack may well be of a different opinion post-52. Interesting to hear what he has to say now.

Check the latest benchmarks.

[Tagrineth]

Xade, first off there are no "latest benchmarks" of HL2 as the engine has been kept quite locked away since that theft some time ago...

And second, I take it you never saw Valve's slide on why the 5x.xx dets should never be used for benchmarking HL2?

[fivefeet8]

And second, I take it you never saw Valve's slide on why the 5x.xx dets should never be used for benchmarking HL2?

Valve said to not use the 51.75 beta dets for testing. They haven't said anything about the 52.xx and the recently released 53.03 forcewares. Add to the fact that the game has been delayed until next year in which case the Nv40 and R420 will be the deciding factor on HL2 performance.

Frankly, the current lineup of Dx9/PS2.0 games that are out now are far outclassed by some of the more currently released Dx8/Ps1.4 games. It probably wont be until early next year or by the time the next generation of Video cards from ATi/Nvidia that we start seeing some really good Dx9/ps2 games. And then by that time, Microsoft will be readying DX10. In which case, the cycle starts all over again.

Barring Tomb Raider AOD with all options enabled, most of the currently released Dx9/ps2 games out are running quite well on Nvidia cards with the Forceware 52.16 and beta 53.03. Ati doesn't have a huge lead like in TR or HL2. The performance in Tomb Raider AOD have actually increased substancially for the GeforceFX's with the newer Drivers. Still not able to get close to the performance of the ATi cards in the heavy PS2.0 benches, but definately a lot better than the meager showings before the 5x.xx dets.

[Xade]

Xade, first off there are no "latest benchmarks" of HL2 as the engine has been kept quite locked away since that theft some time ago...

And second, I take it you never saw Valve's slide on why the 5x.xx dets should never be used for benchmarking HL2?

Even without the blending and corner-cutting, if ran in proper dx9, the new drivers beat the 45s by a fair way.

Also, the HL2 engine beta has been leaked, actually, and a hefty amount of benchmarking has been done using programs like Fraps etc. Crude, but...

52.x and above has brought major improvements for nVidia cards, Tagrineth, and you'd be a fool to argue with that.