Graphics Card Recommendations

I currently have the following system;

AMDBarton 2500+
512 MB RAM
NVIDIA GeForce3 Ti 200
ASUS A7V8X-MX Motherboard

.... but I'm think about upgrading the graphics card to something a little
better, but around the £100 mark - maybe a Radeon 9600XT or a GeForce FX
5700?

Any thoughts?

Jabba wrote:

> I currently have the following system;
>
> AMDBarton 2500+
> 512 MB RAM
> NVIDIA GeForce3 Ti 200
> ASUS A7V8X-MX Motherboard
>
> ... but I'm think about upgrading the graphics card to something a little
> better, but around the £100 mark - maybe a Radeon 9600XT or a GeForce FX
> 5700?
>
> Any thoughts?
>
>


Look at the resource requirements / recommendations for your fabourite
game(s) and choose...
....or save your money for the next PC generation (PCI-E, DDR2, 64 Bit,
BTX...).

Roy

"Jabba" <nohope@nochance.com> wrote in message
news:yNDrc.20$7a1.3@newsfe3-win.server.ntli.net...

" ...I'm think about upgrading the graphics card to something a little
better, but around the £100 mark "


Forget the 9600 XT and the FX 5700. Spend a few more pennies and get a
*Built by ATI* Radeon 9800 Pro for £136.89 http://snipurl.com/6ld6

Card comparisons: http://www20.tomshardware.com/graph...1229/index.html

"Cuzman" <cuzNOSPAM@supanet.com> wrote in message
news:2h9a7eFag403U1@uni-berlin.de...
> "Jabba" <nohope@nochance.com> wrote in message
> news:yNDrc.20$7a1.3@newsfe3-win.server.ntli.net...
>
> " ...I'm think about upgrading the graphics card to something a little
> better, but around the £100 mark "
>
>
> Forget the 9600 XT and the FX 5700. Spend a few more pennies and get a
> *Built by ATI* Radeon 9800 Pro for £136.89 http://snipurl.com/6ld6
>

Not really sure I need this card ... my current system runs Far Cry
relatively well. I'm still looking at the sub £100 mark.

> Card comparisons:
http://www20.tomshardware.com/graph...1229/index.html
>
>

On Sat, 22 May 2004 16:43:08 +0100, "Jabba" <nohope@nochance.com> wrote:

>
>"Cuzman" <cuzNOSPAM@supanet.com> wrote in message
>news:2h9a7eFag403U1@uni-berlin.de...
>> "Jabba" <nohope@nochance.com> wrote in message
>> news:yNDrc.20$7a1.3@newsfe3-win.server.ntli.net...
>>
>> " ...I'm think about upgrading the graphics card to something a little
>> better, but around the £100 mark "
>>
>>
>> Forget the 9600 XT and the FX 5700. Spend a few more pennies and get a
>> *Built by ATI* Radeon 9800 Pro for £136.89 http://snipurl.com/6ld6
>>
>
>Not really sure I need this card ... my current system runs Far Cry
>relatively well. I'm still looking at the sub £100 mark.
>

Keep in mind that the less you spend, the less point there is to upgrading
at all... GF3TI cards aren't THAT slow. Sure, they're quite slow compared
to good newer cards, but that first £40 spent won't get you above the bar
of the GF3, especially if you overclock the GF3... I had one that would
run slightly faster than stock speed of a GF3Ti500, which is approaching
the performance level of a Radeon 9600(SE?) except in DX9 games. Perhaps
DX9 is the key here, if you want/need DX9 support.

There are a ton of benchmarks out there, if you want the best bang for
your buck just keep an eye out for sales, you're needing a great deal,
special price to get a good upgrade for that budget.

"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:6tcva09bvjvigdmo2vq3nq711uo2d04a84@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 22 May 2004 16:43:08 +0100, "Jabba" <nohope@nochance.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Cuzman" <cuzNOSPAM@supanet.com> wrote in message
> >news:2h9a7eFag403U1@uni-berlin.de...
> >> "Jabba" <nohope@nochance.com> wrote in message
> >> news:yNDrc.20$7a1.3@newsfe3-win.server.ntli.net...
> >>
> >> " ...I'm think about upgrading the graphics card to something a little
> >> better, but around the £100 mark "
> >>
> >>
> >> Forget the 9600 XT and the FX 5700. Spend a few more pennies and get a
> >> *Built by ATI* Radeon 9800 Pro for £136.89 http://snipurl.com/6ld6
> >>
> >
> >Not really sure I need this card ... my current system runs Far Cry
> >relatively well. I'm still looking at the sub £100 mark.
> >
>
> Keep in mind that the less you spend, the less point there is to upgrading
> at all... GF3TI cards aren't THAT slow. Sure, they're quite slow compared
> to good newer cards, but that first £40 spent won't get you above the bar
> of the GF3, especially if you overclock the GF3... I had one that would
> run slightly faster than stock speed of a GF3Ti500, which is approaching
> the performance level of a Radeon 9600(SE?) except in DX9 games. Perhaps
> DX9 is the key here, if you want/need DX9 support.
>

I think that's what I wondering. My card is running at 219MHz/477Mhz.

> There are a ton of benchmarks out there, if you want the best bang for
> your buck just keep an eye out for sales, you're needing a great deal,
> special price to get a good upgrade for that budget.

On Sat, 22 May 2004 23:03:12 +0100, "Jabba" <nohope@nochance.com> wrote:


>I think that's what I wondering. My card is running at 219MHz/477Mhz.

_IF_ your card has a reasonable heatsink on GPU and memory you may be able
to run card at (roughly) 250MHz core and 540MHz memory... lesser 'sink on
either component would of course limit the clock speed on that particular
component.

To start out you may be able to o'c with "coolbits" (Google search will
find it), though it it's limiting the max o'c by the range limit in
display properties then you may need do a registry edit or flash a
modified bios to the card, which starts the card at a higher clock speed
(one that is tested stable with coolbits tweak setting and benchmarks,
games, etc) and with that higher clock speed it should cause coolbits
tweak to show a higher range. Not sure I"m making it clear, but the
coolbits max o'c limit with it's slider is detemined by the inital clock
speed specified by the card's bios... the higher the initial clock speed
(within certain ranges) the higher coolbits will allow the card to be set.

Keep in mind that I guarantee nothing about adequate airflow, etc, the
ability of your system to accomodate an o'c card.

"Jabba" <nohope@nochance.com> wrote:
>I currently have the following system;
>AMDBarton 2500+ >512 MB RAM
>NVIDIA GeForce3 Ti 200
>ASUS A7V8X-MX Motherboard
>... but I'm think about upgrading the graphics card to something a little
>better, but around the £100 mark - maybe a Radeon 9600XT or a GeForce FX
>5700? >Any thoughts?

I am just curious about this. AMD & Athalon both are made by AMD.
When you say AMD 2500+, is that indicative of the same speed as
something like an Athalon 2500? I need to ask, because my Athalon is
a 3200+. & you'd logically think that something called a 3200 would
be running at 3200 MHz or 3.2 GHz.. At least before I bought an
Athalon that's what I thought. Of course I soon realized it was too
cheap to be a 3.2 GHz machine.

So, is your AMD running at 2.5 GHz? Or is it slower than that? If
the 2500 is a misleading number like with the Athalon line, then I
don't think a higher end video card will be able to use it's
capabilities very much on your older technology machine (assuming it
is older technology).

Big Mac

P.S. Damn AMD for their misleading model numbers. I'll bet they've
caught a few people by surprise.

Big Mac

"Big Mac" <no-email-in-usenet@zzz.org> wrote in message
news:v2i0b0h2jleghq4irmsh7jt2j726a311l8@4ax.com...
> "Jabba" <nohope@nochance.com> wrote:
> >I currently have the following system;
> >AMDBarton 2500+ >512 MB RAM
> >NVIDIA GeForce3 Ti 200
> >ASUS A7V8X-MX Motherboard
> >... but I'm think about upgrading the graphics card to something a little
> >better, but around the £100 mark - maybe a Radeon 9600XT or a GeForce FX
> >5700? >Any thoughts?
>
> I am just curious about this. AMD & Athalon both are made by AMD.
> When you say AMD 2500+, is that indicative of the same speed as
> something like an Athalon 2500? I need to ask, because my Athalon is
> a 3200+. & you'd logically think that something called a 3200 would
> be running at 3200 MHz or 3.2 GHz.. At least before I bought an
> Athalon that's what I thought. Of course I soon realized it was too
> cheap to be a 3.2 GHz machine.
>
> So, is your AMD running at 2.5 GHz? Or is it slower than that? If
> the 2500 is a misleading number like with the Athalon line, then I
> don't think a higher end video card will be able to use it's
> capabilities very much on your older technology machine (assuming it
> is older technology).
>

The CPU is running at 1.833 GHz which (according to AMD ) is much the same
performance as a 3.2GHz Intel part. It wouldn't describe the AMD Barton
2500+ as old technology, no longer cutting edge but hardly old. I've always
taken the view they you get the best value for money by going to '6 months+'
old technology and not the brand new stuff. This is why I was looking for a
graphics card around the £100 mark.

> Big Mac
>
> P.S. Damn AMD for their misleading model numbers. I'll bet they've
> caught a few people by surprise.
>
> Big Mac
>

On Sat, 22 May 2004 23:55:57 -0700, Big Mac <no-email-in-usenet@zzz.org>
wrote:

>"Jabba" <nohope@nochance.com> wrote:
>>I currently have the following system;
>>AMDBarton 2500+ >512 MB RAM
>>NVIDIA GeForce3 Ti 200
>>ASUS A7V8X-MX Motherboard
>>... but I'm think about upgrading the graphics card to something a little
>>better, but around the £100 mark - maybe a Radeon 9600XT or a GeForce FX
>>5700? >Any thoughts?
>
>I am just curious about this. AMD & Athalon both are made by AMD.
>When you say AMD 2500+, is that indicative of the same speed as
>something like an Athalon 2500? I need to ask, because my Athalon is
>a 3200+. & you'd logically think that something called a 3200 would
>be running at 3200 MHz or 3.2 GHz.. At least before I bought an
>Athalon that's what I thought. Of course I soon realized it was too
>cheap to be a 3.2 GHz machine.

Naw, it's cheaper because AMD doesn't charge a premium for their CPUs like
Intel does excpet for the few highest speeds... the XP2500 is median
speed, so a reasonable price. They aren't actual GHz because it was
necessary to find a way to compare to Intel's chips, which have lower
performance per MHz. but higher MHz operating speeds.


>
>So, is your AMD running at 2.5 GHz? Or is it slower than that? If
>the 2500 is a misleading number like with the Athalon line, then I
>don't think a higher end video card will be able to use it's
>capabilities very much on your older technology machine (assuming it
>is older technology).

An XP2500 is fast enough to benefit a lot from a faster card. For example
a Radeon 9800 should easily be over twice as fast at DX9 games.


>P.S. Damn AMD for their misleading model numbers. I'll bet they've
>caught a few people by surprise.

Why damn AMD? Intel will be doing it too, soon.