ot:best video card for your $

[chrystianek]

well im thinking about buying new 3d card
and i was wondering if u guys have any good experiences with some new(or older models) cards

basicly i want to get the most 4 my money
(but i dont want to buy something with to many gadgets that i wont even use)
i think ill spend 200-300$ on it so i should be able to buy something good

anyway
ill let u guys take it from here
thx for all the sugestions and info
:worship:

[LoVePlAyBoY]

basicly i want to get the most 4 my money

:worship:

lol who doesn't

not sure if this is the right place but for us to help you i think you need to list ur other system specs motherboard/cpu etc

if it does get lock pm me i'll gladly help

[diskoren]

I am also going to get some new computer stuff soon.

The videocards that I'd recommend is, for high-mid-end (not mid high) PCI-express, Radeon X800XL 256MB and Geforce 6600GT 128MB. If the Radeon is out of your pricerange, the 6600gt is a really nice card.

For AGP, probably Geforce 6600GT 128MB.

Not of all of us likes Tom's Hardware Guide, but anyways:

PCIe: http://graphics.tomshardware.com/graphic/20041222/index.html

AGP: http://graphics.tomshardware.com/graphic/20041004/index.html

Hope that helped.

diskoren

e/ cool, my 10000000nd post here. Binary, ofc.

[renounced05]

6600GT = best card in teh 200-300 price range hands down the card is a god for somone on the prowl for a cheap vid card.

[sorcees]

Not really "cheap", i consider cheap as being clear under €100 = under $120.
Maybe some advise in that range?
(no offense, i am not "stealing" your topic).

[Herald of Doom]

Not really "cheap", i consider cheap as being clear under €100 = under $120.
Maybe some advise in that range?
(no offense, i am not "stealing" your topic).
Gfx cards below 200 euro usually have crappy performance. Saving for 205 euro gets you a decent card (6600gt), while 100-120 euro will only get you crappy cards who were out of date even before they were released.

@chrystianek: 6600GT is a good cheap option (205 euro), and for 310 euro you can have the 6800 pcie version, which is quite a lot faster. If you're an ati fan, you can go for the 9800 pro, which is a bit outdated but still has nice performance. If your pc isnt the fastest to begin with, buying a newer generation card wont benefit you more than buying a 9800 pro because then the gfx card is no longer the bottleneck, but it might be your ram or cpu. The only newgeneration ATI within your pricerange is a pcie card, so you might have to buy a new mobo too, but a good mobo is easily 120 euro so then the card wont be cheap anymore. The x800 pro is already 395 euro, so a lot more money then you're willing to spend.

HoD

[Naliworld]

Like Loveplayboy said, we need to know your other system specs. It'll be a waste if you get a spiffy new video card but it ends up getting bottlenecked by your CPU.

Without knowing your system specs, I'm going to echo diskoren, HoD and renounced in saying that the Geforece 6600GT is the card with the best out-of-the-box price/performance ratio right now. However, once ATI makes an AGP version of the X800(which could take some time :/), the title goes to the X800 easily.

However, If you're comfortable with tinkering around with your card, you may want to consider a Geforce 6800LE, or maybe 6800NU(but I won't suggest the latter if you have a weaker CPU). If you manage to unlock the extra 4 pipes(to 16) on the 6800LE, get a much better deal than the 6600GT.

Note the "if", though; while chances are you'll unlock the pipes successfully, it may not always happen, and if the unlocking fails, you'll end up with a card with slightly poorer performance than it had originally(though the card won't explode or anything). It depends if you're willing to take the chance. In any case, don't get the 6800LE or NU if you don't plan to unlock the extra pipes.

The bottom line is:
1) 6600GT if you want the best card now without any tinkering/overclocking
2) X800 if you're willing to wait
3) 6800LE if you want the best card and don't mind tinkering with the card

[sirius]

www.pricewatch.com has some great deals on video cards. a radeon 9600 XT with 256 mb of video memory, or geforce 6600 with 256mb will be a great video card while not costing an exorbitant amount of money.

Sadly, if you want good performance for gaming out of your computer, the only way is to shell out more bucks. Gamers are going to spend the most money on their computers because of the demand they put on them.

The general rule is: The more non-shared video memory for your GPU and the more memory for your CPU, the faster your computer will be able to run games.

Of course, this also depends on your cpu speeds. Also, computer technology has followed a trend of making things twice as fast and efficient every 2 years, and thus a large amount of depreciation happens to all components of every computer, particularly video cards, cpus, memory, and motherboards. Therefore, if you want to buy a video card for a game you have now, you shouldn't have to spend your life savings on it.

To contribute, I'll go ahead and say the 9600XT with 256mb of vram. You'll get more than what you pay for.

[BlckShDwDraGoN]

Like Loveplayboy said, we need to know your other system specs...

Without knowing your system specs, I'm going to echo diskoren, HoD and renounced in saying that the Geforece 6600GT is the card with the best out-of-the-box price/performance ratio right now. However, once ATI makes an AGP version of the X800(which could take some time :/), the title goes to the X800 easily.

However, If you're comfortable with tinkering around with your card, you may want to consider a Geforce 6800LE, or maybe 6800NU(but I won't suggest the latter if you have a weaker CPU). If you manage to unlock the extra 4 pipes(to 16) on the 6800LE, get a much better deal than the 6600GT.

Note the "if", though; while chances are you'll unlock the pipes successfully, it may not always happen, and if the unlocking fails, you'll end up with a card with slightly poorer performance than it had originally(though the card won't explode or anything). It depends if you're willing to take the chance. In any case, don't get the 6800LE or NU if you don't plan to unlock the extra pipes.

The bottom line is:
1) 6600GT if you want the best card now without any tinkering/overclocking
2) X800 if you're willing to wait
3) 6800LE if you want the best card and don't mind tinkering with the card

ummm idk where you get your info but the X series is basically the asimilated chipset for the PCI-E/X architecture from the 9x00 series, for ex. Agp version = 9800 -> PCI-E/X version = X800.
The 9600 and X600 are the best value cards considering a X800 XT Plat. edition costs $450+ where you lose(off the top of my head) aprox 100mhz n clock speed and 400mhz in memory speed which translates into a loss 10-20%(depending on other hardware) in frame rates when playing games like Doom 3 and HL2 at 1024X768 resolution and medium - high settings.

If you are going the PCI-E/X route then buy a X600 Pro by sapphire which cost around $140ish and has 256 mb where as one from ati costs around 200 for only 128mbs with only a miniscule difference in frame rates to high end games. This was the best buy when I built my system about 2-3 months ago so prices should still be concurrent.

Also its the best for your $$ not the best vid card period. I wouldnt pay 450+ (see below, reason insinuated) for a 6800 for only 10-20% better frame rate when i could pay 140 and lose aprox 10-20% frame rate (assuming its 1024X768 resolution and med - high settings).

my system specs:
Intel D540 CPU
Intel 915 PBL Mobo
2X512 DDR2 PC-4200 Dual channel RAM
Sapphire X600 Pro DDR 256mb
-not really relavent but might as well put it down
160GB SATA Maxtor 7200rpm HD
Win XP PRO - got another from a bundle deal

my final cost came to $580
now you wont be able to get the same deal b/c I work retail and have access to special deals thus my cost price is pretty low

if you are to buy these seperate (estimation from the time i bought them[retail price])
Intel D540 CPU - 300
Intel 915 PBL Mobo - 200
2X512 DDR2 PC-4200 Dual channel RAM - 300
Sapphire X600 Pro DDR 256mb - 140
-not really relavent but might as well put it down
160GB SATA Maxtor 7200rpm HD - 160
Win XP PRO - 300

Cost price $1400
Thus I saved 59% from retail prices.

now look at what you made me do <_< i got technical and im not even at work ><*;;

[Naliworld]

ummm idk where you get your info but the X series is basically the asimilated chipset for the PCI-E/X architecture from the 9x00 series, for ex. Agp version = 9800 -> PCI-E/X version = X800.
The 9600 and X600 are the best value cards considering a X800 XT Plat. edition costs $450+ where you lose(off the top of my head) aprox 100mhz n clock speed and 400mhz in memory speed which translates into a loss 10-20%(depending on other hardware) in frame rates when playing games like Doom 3 and HL2 at 1024X768 resolution and medium - high settings.

If you are going the PCI-E/X route then buy a X600 Pro by sapphire which cost around $140ish and has 256 mb where as one from ati costs around 200 for only 128mbs with only a miniscule difference in frame rates to high end games. This was the best buy when I built my system about 2-3 months ago so prices should still be concurrent.

Also its the best for your $$ not the best vid card period. I wouldnt pay 450+ (see below, reason insinuated) for a 6800 for only 10-20% better frame rate when i could pay 140 and lose aprox 10-20% frame rate (assuming its 1024X768 resolution and med - high settings).

I don't claim to be any authority on video cards, but are you sure about the X800 simply being a PCI-E version of the 9800? Comparing the two(X800 (http://techreport.com/reviews/2004q4/radeon-x800xl/index.x?pg=1) and 9800 (http://apps.ati.com/ATIcompare/) - compare the 9800 with some random card, the comparison page itself doesn't have a unique URL), the X800 has 4 more pipelines, 60Mhz faster memory clock(before doubling) and 75Mhz faster core clock. You can also look at any benchmark and see the the X800 being quite a bit faster than a 9800(same is true for X800 Pro vs. 9800Pro).

Not sure how the X600 and 9600 match up, but IMO the comparsion doesn't hold for X800/9800.

As for the best performance/cost card, using 1024x768, High with no AF/AA(let's use Far Cry as the example), using these two links(1 (http://graphics.tomshardware.com/graphic/20041119/geforce-6600gt-agp-10.html) and 2 (http://graphics.tomshardware.com/graphic/20041004/vga_charts-08.html) - sorry I couldn't get a benchmark using the same version...), assuming the MSRP of the 6600GT is $200 and the 9600Pro being $100, it's easy to see the 6600GT having a better price/performance ratio(same holds true for 6600GT vs. X600Pro). I didn't use Doom3 as Nvidia cards have a natural advantage there, Far Cry seems like more even ground.

Then again, I'm not sure how much the different Farcry versions skew the results. In any case, you also have to take into account playabillity...22 frames is unplayable for me(not to mention how things will change half a year from now), though I guess this one varies from person to person.

[BlckShDwDraGoN]

I don't claim to be any authority on video cards, but are you sure about the X800 simply being a PCI-E version of the 9800? Comparing the two(X800 (http://techreport.com/reviews/2004q4/radeon-x800xl/index.x?pg=1) and 9800 (http://apps.ati.com/ATIcompare/) - compare the 9800 with some random card, the comparison page itself doesn't have a unique URL), the X800 has 4 more pipelines, 60Mhz faster memory clock(before doubling) and 75Mhz faster core clock. You can also look at any benchmark and see the the X800 being quite a bit faster than a 9800(same is true for X800 Pro vs. 9800Pro).

Not sure how the X600 and 9600 match up, but IMO the comparsion doesn't hold for X800/9800.

As for the best performance/cost card, using 1024x768, High with no AF/AA(let's use Far Cry as the example), using these two links(1 (http://graphics.tomshardware.com/graphic/20041119/geforce-6600gt-agp-10.html) and 2 (http://graphics.tomshardware.com/graphic/20041004/vga_charts-08.html) - sorry I couldn't get a benchmark using the same version...), assuming the MSRP of the 6600GT is $200 and the 9600Pro being $100, it's easy to see the 6600GT having a better price/performance ratio(same holds true for 6600GT vs. X600Pro). I didn't use Doom3 as Nvidia cards have a natural advantage there, Far Cry seems like more even ground.

Then again, I'm not sure how much the different Farcry versions skew the results. In any case, you also have to take into account playabillity...22 frames is unplayable for me(not to mention how things will change half a year from now), though I guess this one varies from person to person.



keep in mind when comparing the x800 to the 9800 to factor in the time when they first came out and compare the architectures. The x800 is basically the 9800 for its time thus comparing older technology to newer technology is skew'ed in itself. Theirs a reason why they named their cards in this pattern if you dont see it already. Like i said the X series is the new 9X00 series for PCI-e. As for the the 9600 vs the 6600 is ludicrous when comparing the architectures 4gbs up and down stream vs 2.2gb 1 way. Nvida has always been the best performance card for games. As for Far Cry Im not sure i never read anything on it, but all perfomance tests usually invovle more complex games like doom 3 and half life 2 to really make the cards work for your money. And in about 10 years (analyists predict) HP's Crossbar latch might actually change EVERYTHING as in say bye bye to the transistor making everything go 10 fold. Imagine the computing power!!!! :clap: :lol: :lol: :clap:

[turmania]

if u play d2 and u want a graphics card for this game, to be honest you dont need to have the high end or mid end even. low end will play this game just fine. i had 5200fx no problems i encountered.

now if you are looking for todays technology and other games;

mid range: price/performance: best is x800 vanilla after that 6600 gt.

high end: best is x800xl, after that 6800 gt.

ultra high end: x850xt-pe and well 6800 ultra is not worth mentioning here.

since this game plays at very low resolution 800*600 i believe even owning the low end would be fine.

[Naliworld]

keep in mind when comparing the x800 to the 9800 to factor in the time when they first came out and compare the architectures. The x800 is basically the 9800 for its time thus comparing older technology to newer technology is skew'ed in itself. Theirs a reason why they named their cards in this pattern if you dont see it already. Like i said the X series is the new 9X00 series for PCI-e. As for the the 9600 vs the 6600 is ludicrous when comparing the architectures 4gbs up and down stream vs 2.2gb 1 way. Nvida has always been the best performance card for games. As for Far Cry Im not sure i never read anything on it, but all perfomance tests usually invovle more complex games like doom 3 and half life 2 to really make the cards work for your money. And in about 10 years (analyists predict) HP's Crossbar latch might actually change EVERYTHING as in say bye bye to the transistor making everything go 10 fold. Imagine the computing power!!!! :clap: :lol: :lol: :clap:

Architecture comparison is all well and good, but isn't the bottom line video card performance per dollar? To me, if a card with an older architecture performed better than one with a newer architecture, and at a lower cost, I'd buy the older card in an instant, and I'm willing to bet you'd do the same.

Doom3 and HL2 are no doubt stressful games, but given all these licensing deals Id and Valve are cutting with Nvidia and ATI respectively(OK, maybe I'm exaggerating with HL2 in this case, but you can see the huge difference in Doom3 perfomance in particular, which doesn't apply to other non-OpenGL games), I'm doubtful as to whether they can be used to objectively compare between two cards of different manufacture.

Since Far Cry is made by a relatively unknown developer with little ties to either ATI or Nvidia, I'm pretty confident it provides a fairer comparison. And it definitely stresses video cards, maybe not to the extent of newer games, but sufficiently enough. The fact that major benchmarking sites use the game is a testament in itself(and it's a pretty good game, too ;)).

Awesome find on the crossbar latch, BTW. :lol: :p

[BlckShDwDraGoN]

Architecture comparison is all well and good, but isn't the bottom line video card performance per dollar? To me, if a card with an older architecture performed better than one with a newer architecture, and at a lower cost, I'd buy the older card in an instant, and I'm willing to bet you'd do the same.

Doom3 and HL2 are no doubt stressful games, but given all these licensing deals Id and Valve are cutting with Nvidia and ATI respectively(OK, maybe I'm exaggerating with HL2 in this case, but you can see the huge difference in Doom3 perfomance in particular, which doesn't apply to other non-OpenGL games), I'm doubtful as to whether they can be used to objectively compare between two cards of different manufacture.

Since Far Cry is made by a relatively unknown developer with little ties to either ATI or Nvidia, I'm pretty confident it provides a fairer comparison. And it definitely stresses video cards, maybe not to the extent of newer games, but sufficiently enough. The fact that major benchmarking sites use the game is a testament in itself(and it's a pretty good game, too ;)).

Awesome find on the crossbar latch, BTW. :lol: :p

Architecture comparison isnt quite applicable since its a 2 way "street" instead of a 1 way "street" <_< PCI-e can go up to 2x faster than AGP 8X because of this 2 way "street." Basically a low end PCI-e Card is almost as equivalent to mediocre AGP card even if the AGP card has a faster VPU/GPU.

This 'middle ground' of yours to me seems like a misconception, since both manufacturers have 'deals'(moreover like marketing deals) with Id and Valve, thus Far cry is Middle ground? Far cry isnt middle ground since both cards ati/nvidia have to do the same computations when playing the same title. Even if you were to factor in the fact ID or Valve has an easier time to access the info on how the ATI/Nvidia card works to make their games run faster doesnt apply to the performce while comparing different games. The real comparison is in between the cards not the software title. Its like saying ATI frame rate on Far Cry vs Nvidia frame rate on Far Cry = ATI frame rate on Doom3/HL2 vs Nvidia frame rate on Doom3/HL2.

[Naliworld]

I feel you're overstating the benefit of PCI-e on video cards, as current games haven't even come close to saturating the AGP 8X limit yet, so the 2-way street argument is moot(going by your analogy, if the one-way street only has a few cars on it, what's the point of making a two-way street?). And most importantly, for now, and at least another 6 months from now, most PCI-e cards will be priced significantly higher than AGP cards with the same clockspeeds and pipes, and for this reason I feel it isn't worth it to convert to PCI-e right now(maybe in a year or two, I'll change my mind). This (http://graphics.tomshardware.com/graphic/20040310/index.html) is an article showing why in detail.

I guess that depends on what games chrys will be playing. My main point, though, is that the majority of games made will not have either ATI or Nvidia having an opportunity to tinker with the games' code so as to make it faster with their respective cards. Hence my argument, that although Nvidia has a large advantage in OpenGL games like Doom3, Quake3 and the upcoming Quake4, in DirectX games and Source engine games(which the majority of games use), it's largely middle ground(maybe a very slight advantage to ATi, due to being involved in HL2), so Nvidia's successes in a few games cannot be translated to all-round success. And rather than confusing the whole argument with multiple benchmarks, I picked the game that IMO is reflective of most DirectX games(that don't have either ATI or Nvidia interfering with development) - Far Cry.

It seems we are drifting away further from the topic title...sorry about that chrys.

[Liliel]

As has been said, the card you want will depend heavily on what games you want to play, or what you want to do. I myself have an old and crappy budget card (GeForce MX4000), but it's enough to play a lot of good, older games, such as D2, Baldur's Gate 2, Morrwind, Deus Ex, Homeworld and anything based on the Quake III engine. And that's fine with me because I don't like to pay much for my PC games anyways.

[BlckShDwDraGoN]

I feel you're overstating the benefit of PCI-e on video cards, as current games haven't even come close to saturating the AGP 8X limit yet, so the 2-way street argument is moot(going by your analogy, if the one-way street only has a few cars on it, what's the point of making a two-way street?). And most importantly, for now, and at least another 6 months from now, most PCI-e cards will be priced significantly higher than AGP cards with the same clockspeeds and pipes, and for this reason I feel it isn't worth it to convert to PCI-e right now(maybe in a year or two, I'll change my mind). This (http://graphics.tomshardware.com/graphic/20040310/index.html) is an article showing why in detail.

I guess that depends on what games chrys will be playing. My main point, though, is that the majority of games made will not have either ATI or Nvidia having an opportunity to tinker with the games' code so as to make it faster with their respective cards. Hence my argument, that although Nvidia has a large advantage in OpenGL games like Doom3, Quake3 and the upcoming Quake4, in DirectX games and Source engine games(which the majority of games use), it's largely middle ground(maybe a very slight advantage to ATi, due to being involved in HL2), so Nvidia's successes in a few games cannot be translated to all-round success. And rather than confusing the whole argument with multiple benchmarks, I picked the game that IMO is reflective of most DirectX games(that don't have either ATI or Nvidia interfering with development) - Far Cry.

It seems we are drifting away further from the topic title...sorry about that chrys.

The real benefit is bolestered by your article for future games. To me a budget card is the best bang for the buck, so if a PCI Express performs at somewhat at the same speed (due to a software title, in which the software DOESNT take advantage of the bus). The arguement isnt moot becuase of the simultanious transfer while AGP must act in a linear fashion which in the future will cause a higher latency (in a very complex game). Your agruemnt for a higher priced PCI-Express card isnt much of a huge price difference for the future benefit. This arguement is founded assuming chrys will be playing high end games now and in the future. If you dont like change go ahead and do what Nailworld has advised, but if you want to play fancy extravagant future games take my advice and get yourself a PCI-Express card (as you can see my new system costed me close to nothing compared to a retail price, price isnt a huge factor if you know how to find a great bargain)

[Naliworld]

Well, let's put this in perspective: the article I linked to in my previous post was written almost exactly a year ago, and games at that time had not yet saturated AGP 4X, not to even mention AGP 8X, so I think it's safe to assume games at least a year or 1.5 years from now, even the most stressful ones, will not be bottlenecked by AGP 8X.

You do have a point with latency, but this rarely translates into large real-world increases. For example, the PCIe 6600GT is a whole 3.1 frames faster than the AGP with 1024x768/no AA/AF(compare the AGP (http://graphics.tomshardware.com/graphic/20041119/geforce-6600gt-agp-10.html) and PCIe (http://graphics.tomshardware.com/graphic/20041222/vga_charts-07.html) 6600GT), and as the AA/AF/Res gets cranked up, the difference is almost gone, and with all settings maxed, the AGP 6600GT actually does better by a good margin(though it's not really relevant, given the unplayable framerates).

It should be noted that there's a larger increase when using high end PCIe cards(like 6800GT), but then again we are talking about budget cards. Don't get me wrong, being futureproof is good, but there comes a point where it turns into redundancy...

Speaking about high-end games, with a 9600Pro/X600Pro at least, I doubt chrys will be able to play many cutting-edge games(or if he does, at very low settings, and who likes that?). ;) Which makes it even more unlikely the AGP 8X limit will be exceeded.

And budget cards(i.e. low end cards), by their very nature, are meant to be replaced relatively often, so if chrys happens to buy a full PCIe system 1.5 years from now(as opposed to right now), I think he'd save a decent amount, as by then, PCIe prices would have fallen quite a bit, more games would support the PCI bus, and the most stressful games should begin to outgrow the AGP 8X limit.

[BlckShDwDraGoN]

It should be noted that there's a larger increase when using high end PCIe cards(like 6800GT), but then again we are talking about budget cards. Don't get me wrong, being futureproof is good, but there comes a point where it turns into redundancy...

Speaking about high-end games, with a 9600Pro/X600Pro at least, I doubt chrys will be able to play many cutting-edge games(or if he does, at very low settings, and who likes that?). ;) Which makes it even more unlikely the AGP 8X limit will be exceeded.

And budget cards(i.e. low end cards), by their very nature, are meant to be replaced relatively often, so if chrys happens to buy a full PCIe system 1.5 years from now(as opposed to right now), I think he'd save a decent amount, as by then, PCIe prices would have fallen quite a bit, more games would support the PCI bus, and the most stressful games should begin to outgrow the AGP 8X limit.

like i said there isnt much of a big difference in price maybe 10-25% increase as you go up to the X800XT opposed to a 9800 XT and i fyou want to be future proof you can get a cheap X300 for like 50-70 non reetail in a retail package assuming you know where to look which means PCI-Express cards have a miniscule difference when comparing the pros to the upto 25% increase in price. Also everything in upgrading is redundant :) after every ~ 2years or so :eek: