I'm planning on upgrading my video card to go with a gaming rig based
on a Athlon 64 3200+ system.

Basically, budget is not an issue. However, I *would* like to get the
most bang out of my buck. I'm not willing to spend an extra 40% in
cost if it'll only yield a 10% performance increase. And I'm not
willing to buy a fancy new card that'll depreciate all the way down to
60% of its original value within six months or something. I'm not
really looking to buy the biggest and baddest card available; I just
want an ideal graphics card to straddle the delicate balance between
cost, performance, and longevity. I *did* own a Geforce4 Ti4200 for a
long time, after all.

So... which is it? Right now, I'm looking at a Radeon 9800 Pro. I'm
not even sure if I ought to get the 128MB or the 256MB version. I was
going to get the 128MB version... but then on Doom 3, a 128MB video
card yields a "suggested" setup of only medium (!) setting, instead of
high for 256MB cards. If this is a sign of things to come for all the
newest games to be released in the next year, then maybe the 128MB
cards are becoming obsolete already.

Anyway, I'm open to suggestions.

In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Opticreep
says...
> I'm planning on upgrading my video card to go with a gaming rig based
> on a Athlon 64 3200+ system.
>
> Basically, budget is not an issue. However, I *would* like to get the
> most bang out of my buck. I'm not willing to spend an extra 40% in
> cost if it'll only yield a 10% performance increase. And I'm not
> willing to buy a fancy new card that'll depreciate all the way down to
> 60% of its original value within six months or something. I'm not
> really looking to buy the biggest and baddest card available; I just
> want an ideal graphics card to straddle the delicate balance between
> cost, performance, and longevity. I *did* own a Geforce4 Ti4200 for a
> long time, after all.
>
> So... which is it? Right now, I'm looking at a Radeon 9800 Pro. I'm
> not even sure if I ought to get the 128MB or the 256MB version. I was
> going to get the 128MB version... but then on Doom 3, a 128MB video
> card yields a "suggested" setup of only medium (!) setting, instead of
> high for 256MB cards. If this is a sign of things to come for all the
> newest games to be released in the next year, then maybe the 128MB
> cards are becoming obsolete already.
>
Best bang for buck doesn't work out cheapest in the long run.


--
Conor

Opinions personal, facts suspect.

> So... which is it? Right now, I'm looking at a Radeon 9800 Pro. I'm
> not even sure if I ought to get the 128MB or the 256MB version. I was
> going to get the 128MB version... but then on Doom 3, a 128MB video
> card yields a "suggested" setup of only medium (!) setting, instead of
> high for 256MB cards. If this is a sign of things to come for all the
> newest games to be released in the next year, then maybe the 128MB
> cards are becoming obsolete already.

I run an ATI 9800 Pro 128Mb on a Barton 3200. Doom 3 is run on high
graphics settings, 1024x768 with 2X FSAA. Never a slowdown or lag anywhere,
anytime. At 4X you get some slowdown in large areas with high demon counts.
The 256Mb cards don't give you any more speed in FPS, and the additional $80
is not worth it IMHO.

On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 01:27:29 +0100, Conor <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Opticreep
>says...
>> I'm planning on upgrading my video card to go with a gaming rig based
>> on a Athlon 64 3200+ system.
>>
>> Basically, budget is not an issue. However, I *would* like to get the
>> most bang out of my buck. I'm not willing to spend an extra 40% in
>> cost if it'll only yield a 10% performance increase. And I'm not
>> willing to buy a fancy new card that'll depreciate all the way down to
>> 60% of its original value within six months or something. I'm not
>> really looking to buy the biggest and baddest card available; I just
>> want an ideal graphics card to straddle the delicate balance between
>> cost, performance, and longevity. I *did* own a Geforce4 Ti4200 for a
>> long time, after all.
>>
>> So... which is it? Right now, I'm looking at a Radeon 9800 Pro. I'm
>> not even sure if I ought to get the 128MB or the 256MB version. I was
>> going to get the 128MB version... but then on Doom 3, a 128MB video
>> card yields a "suggested" setup of only medium (!) setting, instead of
>> high for 256MB cards. If this is a sign of things to come for all the
>> newest games to be released in the next year, then maybe the 128MB
>> cards are becoming obsolete already.
>>
>Best bang for buck doesn't work out cheapest in the long run.

That's debatable. Look how many years people got from their GeForce
4200s. You can't tell me that if they'd spent twice the money on a
4600 that they would have been able to gain any extra mileage out of
it.

Opticreep wrote in message <(E-Mail Removed)>...
>I'm planning on upgrading my video card to go with a gaming rig based
>on a Athlon 64 3200+ system.
>
Excellent system specs, open to many alternatives.
If your budget allows, consider an Nvidia 6800 lineup... Why not ?

>Basically, budget is not an issue. However, I *would* like to get the
>most bang out of my buck.
>
Nvidia so far.. Even though I do own a really nice 9800Pro myself.
Very happy about the price I got then. Suits my purpose.

And that shoudl be the main question for you since budget is not
a real issue.. What's your purpose ? (not expecting answers, ask yourself)
* Are you an engineer or expecting to run HighTech 3D softwares ?
* Are you mostly a wealthy happy gamer looking for a superDuper upgrade ?
* Maybe you are a gamer, and programmer hobbyist.

> I'm not willing to spend an extra 40% in
>cost if it'll only yield a 10% performance increase.
>
Look at benchmarks. In general you see that for MOST current games,
at DECENT resolutions (not talking 1600x1200, or fancying 4xAA)..
Then a Rad9800Pro can do it all nicely... Only Doom3 is an exception
with an incredible demand on just about everything the machine can offer.

You can expect to pay double the price of a Rad9800 for double performance
on Doom3........ BUT that's the exception... If you run decent rez (1024x768 or 1280x1024),
The difference really don't matter anymore.

Then in one or two years; Add a few bucks to that saved (1/2price of 6800), and get
another best bang for the buck... Still plenty for your 'purpose'.

IMHO, a 9800Pro is all that you need. If you are really feeling compelled, the next step
is 6800.

> And I'm not
>willing to buy a fancy new card that'll depreciate all the way down to
>60% of its original value within six months or something. I'm not
>really looking to buy the biggest and baddest card available; I just
>want an ideal graphics card to straddle the delicate balance between
>cost, performance, and longevity. I *did* own a Geforce4 Ti4200 for a
>long time, after all.
>
Welcome to the mainstream.
Unless you had very specific requirements; (insane FPS for Doom3,
or architectural apps demanding 512MB textures), 9800Pro is neat.

>So... which is it? Right now, I'm looking at a Radeon 9800 Pro.
>
Quit staring; This is excellent.
I've got one ... The extreme bandwidth and RAMDAC speed makes it
rock solid at the highest resolution desktop. runs on Linux fine, and
running 3D games;I'm laughing all the way to the bank. Good savings.

>I'm
>not even sure if I ought to get the 128MB or the 256MB version. I was
>going to get the 128MB version... but then on Doom 3, a 128MB video
>card yields a "suggested" setup of only medium (!) setting, instead of
>high for 256MB cards.
>
Ultra rez is really not worth it for Doom3.. HQ 1024x768 is really sweet
and you can expect to run above 40fps on your machine.
Who cares about 256MB+ unless you do 3D modeling or expect your card
to last more than 2+ years. 128MB plenty.

> If this is a sign of things to come for all the
>newest games to be released in the next year, then maybe the 128MB
>cards are becoming obsolete already.
>
No no.. It's the good deal my friend. 128MB is plenty for most...

Don't you remember the days with 16MB Nvidia TnT, or 32MB TnT2
or 64MB Geforces... LOL 128MB is plenty for 99% of current games,
and will remain true for a solid year or two.

>Anyway, I'm open to suggestions.
>
It's the right attitude.
Whatever you decide, just decide between 9800Pro and 6800;
X800 still too expensive.. BUT, you might want to consider pre Xmas rebates.
N³o

In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, says...

> >Best bang for buck doesn't work out cheapest in the long run.
>
> That's debatable. Look how many years people got from their GeForce
> 4200s. You can't tell me that if they'd spent twice the money on a
> 4600 that they would have been able to gain any extra mileage out of
> it.
>
THankyou for proving my point. The best bang per buck card back then
was the Geforce 2MX.


--
Conor

Opinions personal, facts suspect.

I'd disagree with that, it was the 9500pro. Bang for buck means good
performance before you begin to pay big money for little more performance
(at least to me). That card was near the bottom end and was a starter
gaming card. Even the gf4200 fit the description better than the gf2mx.
I'm with slob on this one.

Mike

"Conor" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, says...
>
>> >Best bang for buck doesn't work out cheapest in the long run.
>>
>> That's debatable. Look how many years people got from their GeForce
>> 4200s. You can't tell me that if they'd spent twice the money on a
>> 4600 that they would have been able to gain any extra mileage out of
>> it.
>>
> THankyou for proving my point. The best bang per buck card back then
> was the Geforce 2MX.
>
>
> --
> Conor
>
> Opinions personal, facts suspect.

In article <W3Y2d.134042$(E-Mail Removed)>, Mike P
says...
> I'd disagree with that, it was the 9500pro. Bang for buck means good
> performance before you begin to pay big money for little more performance
> (at least to me). That card was near the bottom end and was a starter
> gaming card. Even the gf4200 fit the description better than the gf2mx.
> I'm with slob on this one.
>
I don't mind. I make more money in the long run out of people who buy a
couple of tiers down then end up upgrading every couple of years.


--
Conor

Opinions personal, facts suspect.

Opticreep wrote:

> I'm planning on upgrading my video card to go with a gaming rig based
> on a Athlon 64 3200+ system.
>
> Basically, budget is not an issue. However, I *would* like to get the
> most bang out of my buck. I'm not willing to spend an extra 40% in
> cost if it'll only yield a 10% performance increase. And I'm not
> willing to buy a fancy new card that'll depreciate all the way down to
> 60% of its original value within six months or something.

So that leaves out the current crop of top-of-the-line gaming cards like
GF6800 or x800...

> I'm not
> really looking to buy the biggest and baddest card available; I just
> want an ideal graphics card to straddle the delicate balance between
> cost, performance, and longevity. I *did* own a Geforce4 Ti4200 for a
> long time, after all.
>
> So... which is it? Right now, I'm looking at a Radeon 9800 Pro. I'm
> not even sure if I ought to get the 128MB or the 256MB version. I was
> going to get the 128MB version... but then on Doom 3, a 128MB video
> card yields a "suggested" setup of only medium (!) setting, instead of
> high for 256MB cards.

Well, the low/mid/high/ultra settings in Doom3 are mainly just about texture
size. Low is for 64MB, medium for 128MB, high for 256MB and ultra for (in
the gaming area non-existent) 512MB cards. If You choose high on a 64MB card
textures have to be swapped to main memory which is slow. I played some
parts of Doom on an ATI FireGL X1-256p which has 256MB memory. I didn't
notice much advancement when going from mid to high setting.

> If this is a sign of things to come for all the
> newest games to be released in the next year, then maybe the 128MB
> cards are becoming obsolete already.

I played most part of Doom3 on a notebook with Radeon Mobility 9200 with
32MB at 1024x768 (sadly Doom3 didn't offer some widescreen modes, IMHO very
poor for such a hyped game). Of course at "low" settings since the increased
texture size at higher settings would slow down the system. 32MB should be
obsolete, but still can run FarCry and Doom3. Until recently I played most
games on a laptop with Radeon Mobility 7500 with 16MB.

128MB are more than enough today, and when the time comes that Your 128MB
card has too small memory to run current games it also will be too slow even
if it would have 256MB. So IMHO I wouldn't pay the additional price for
256MB...

Benjamin

"Opticreep" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> I'm planning on upgrading my video card to go with a gaming rig based
> on a Athlon 64 3200+ system.
>
> Basically, budget is not an issue. However, I *would* like to get the
> most bang out of my buck. I'm not willing to spend an extra 40% in
> cost if it'll only yield a 10% performance increase. And I'm not
> willing to buy a fancy new card that'll depreciate all the way down to
> 60% of its original value within six months or something. I'm not
> really looking to buy the biggest and baddest card available; I just
> want an ideal graphics card to straddle the delicate balance between
> cost, performance, and longevity. I *did* own a Geforce4 Ti4200 for a
> long time, after all.
>
> So... which is it? Right now, I'm looking at a Radeon 9800 Pro. I'm
> not even sure if I ought to get the 128MB or the 256MB version. I was
> going to get the 128MB version... but then on Doom 3, a 128MB video
> card yields a "suggested" setup of only medium (!) setting, instead of
> high for 256MB cards. If this is a sign of things to come for all the
> newest games to be released in the next year, then maybe the 128MB
> cards are becoming obsolete already.
>
> Anyway, I'm open to suggestions.

The best thing to do is look at the benchmarks out there on Toms Hardware,
Anandtech, and Sharkys web sites. And any other sites that you can find.
Usually these sites will list pros and cons of each video (like power
requirements for the latest Nvidia 6800 video card). Next find the price of
the cards that interest you. Then do a cost vs benefit. For example, at
one point I was seriously thinking of getting the ATI9600XT card, until I
discovered that I could get the ATI9800 Pro 128meg for $40 more and almost
double my frame rates.

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2195 (has a nice chart with
most video cards along with their specs)
http://www.sharkyextreme.com/hardwar...ards/index.php
www.pricewatch.com (here you can quickly scan for lowest prices of video
cards)

IMHO, the ATI 9800 Pro 128meg or the Nvidia 5900 128 meg are very decent
cards for their cost. Around $200. But they might be showing their age
with the recent crop of games coming out: Doom 3 and Half Life 2. If you
got the cash and want to double your performance, then there's the new
generation of video cards that should keep you going for at least the next 2
years. ATI X800 and Nvidia 6800. But expect to pay twice the cost too.

note: you might also want to look into the new "PCI Express" video cards
like the Nvidia 6600 which supports SLI. but you'll need a PCI Express mb.
http://graphics.tomshardware.com/gra...907/index.html
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2196