TranceAddict Forums

TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Gaming Forum
-- Video Card recommendations


Posted by xls on Nov-21-2003 22:55:

Video Card recommendations

Alright, my old Appian Graphics Dual Head has had it's day and I'm in the market for a new video card. What's the best video card available right now in the $100-$150 CAD range? ATI or NVIDIA? It must be able to be run as a dual head card as well (One VGA and one DVI-I is fine).
Any recommendations?


Posted by KyLeGs on Nov-26-2003 11:29:

save up some money and get 9800 xt if you wanna play games like HL2


Posted by DjJade on Nov-27-2003 22:05:

i heard the xt wasnt that much better than its old model. not good enough to justify the price atleast


Posted by smallSHEEP on Nov-29-2003 13:36:

If you can get hold a plain 9800 then they are excelent value for money.


Posted by MoonMan on Nov-29-2003 17:26:

quote:
Originally posted by smallSHEEP
If you can get hold a plain 9800 then they are excelent value for money.


Agreed, the cost difference is huge between an XT, and the older 9800. I mean for performance the XT wins all the way, btw even consider a 9600 XT as it'll run hl2 np...


Posted by Turbonium on Dec-01-2003 08:16:

quote:
Originally posted by MoonMan
Agreed, the cost difference is huge between an XT, and the older 9800. I mean for performance the XT wins all the way, btw even consider a 9600 XT as it'll run hl2 np...


So will a 9600 Pro (and that is NOT a biased opinion lol).


Posted by Hg-203 on Dec-02-2003 04:11:

I'm an ATI fanboy so I don't know Nvida's lineup enough to give you anything on them. But if you want to play HL2 or Doom 3 anything from the 9700 Pro on up will run Doom 3 just fine (HL2 will run on a TNT and like 500 MHz CPU so valve clams) if you want a good budget card try to find a 9500 pro it has the same chip as the 9700 i.e. 9700=9500 but they underclocked something. If you do get the 9800 you don't need the XT its just an upgrade in the Ram which is quite worthless for the next year or two at least. If you could I would wait till spring (rumored to be feb/march) when ATI finally does some major revamping of their chip with some noticeable speed increases, more then the change from ATI's 9700 to 9800.

But for your budget I would be looking for a 9500 or 9600 (9500 preferred)


Posted by Zen on Dec-07-2003 07:49:

ATI has the best videocards period. I'd stay away from Nvida, they've been caught tuning their cards before doing a bench mark just to get a higher score in 3D bench mark test such as 3D Mark, etc.

Bottom line, IMO I'd get a Radeon 9700 PRO. Its worth the extra buck (I know its more than what you stated you wanted to spend) and will still be compatiable with newer games. And most importantly directX9.

But if you dont want to spend that kind of money and stay in the $100 - 150 then look into getting a ATI Radeon 9200. Or even a 9500 PRO, but I don't think you can find them for that much, even used. Try ebay

Hope this helps.


Posted by xls on Dec-07-2003 16:09:

thanks for the tips guys! I'm thinking I'll probably have to wait until after xmas anyways so maybe I'll just push it another couple of months and see how much the prices drop...


Posted by Billabong on Dec-10-2003 11:56:

9800 is brilliant, neer fails me on anything.


Posted by ThaDevil on Dec-10-2003 20:16:

Radeon 9700 Pro remains one of the best cards out there, Radeon 9800 Pro is just a tiny bit faster, not even noticable diffrence.
One thing for sure tho, Radeon 9700 Pro kills any nVidiot series.


Posted by PizdusInc on Dec-11-2003 00:52:

Radeon really stepped it up with the new cards... leaving nVidia in the dust on some benchmarks. I am kind of eager to see what's coming next!

I know they are gone, but nobody would be able to beat 3DFX if they were still around!!!!


Posted by MoonMan on Dec-11-2003 21:02:

quote:
Originally posted by PizdusInc
Radeon really stepped it up with the new cards... leaving nVidia in the dust on some benchmarks. I am kind of eager to see what's coming next!

I know they are gone, but nobody would be able to beat 3DFX if they were still around!!!!


3DFX were swalloed up by NVIDIA, so in effect they are still around


Posted by ogvh5150 on Dec-12-2003 02:47:

I think 3dfx went to both camps of ATI and Nvidia.

Other than that I have a 7500 AIW Radeon and I will gladly stay with ATI for their 9K series cards.

I didn't like it when those nvidiots cheated their benchmarks too.

Try toms hardware for great tests on all recent cards.


Posted by TheFutureIsNear on Dec-15-2003 03:44:

Radeon 9600 PRo is always good ^^


Posted by dj ZevZ on Dec-16-2003 00:33:

Go for the 9500 pro and overclock it


Posted by SuperFarStucker on Dec-16-2003 16:42:

Supposedly ATi is cheating on their benchmarks, again... nVidia's new flagship card is a direct competitor with the biggest and baddest ati card (9800 xt?) but their is some image quality issues with benchmarks on the ATi line of cards (cheating on alpha-layers etc.) that makes ATi's driver programming suspect. nVidia, too, has been caught optimizing drivers (cheating) on benchmarks but they have a self-proclaimed optimizing guideline now, which supposedly (and thus far, seems to) is supposed to stop optimizations that could be construed as cheating (program specific, quality reducing, etc.).

I myself have a rad 9600... kind of sucks really, I'd say my mates ti 4200 is as fast or faster than my card. I tend to stay away from FPS anymore. It's a waste of time, there is too many cheaters for the games to be fun online (not to mention I don't excel in said art). RTS or RPG's for me...


Posted by rizo on Dec-16-2003 20:27:

ATi and the card manufactures have really been sneaky with the 256 and 128bit bus labeling on their products, but with enough money ATi should be the best.


Posted by SuperFarStucker on Dec-17-2003 06:10:

quote:
Originally posted by rizen
ATi and the card manufactures have really been sneaky with the 256 and 128bit bus labeling on their products, but with enough money ATi should be the best.
While I'm not exactly educated on a technical level about the issue, the bus width only relates with memory bandwidth, which, is important but twice the bus width doesn't equal twice the memory bandwidth (although it does equal twice the theoretical). That being said, both nVidia's and ATi's flagship cards both use 256 bit bus widths, although the nVidia core is considerably more complex if you only go by transistor count... I believe Tom's hardware drummed up an article regarding ati card cheating not too long ago (when the new nvidia card was released...).


Posted by E*Master on Dec-20-2003 21:28:

Re: Video Card recommendations

quote:
Originally posted by xls
Alright, my old Appian Graphics Dual Head has had it's day and I'm in the market for a new video card. What's the best video card available right now in the $100-$150 CAD range? ATI or NVIDIA? It must be able to be run as a dual head card as well (One VGA and one DVI-I is fine).
Any recommendations?


If u seriously can't save up for something better try a REGULAR 9600 OEM or a Gigabyte radeon 9200.


Posted by mndeg on Dec-24-2003 07:40:

no one remembers when ati was caught cheating on benchmarks?


Posted by ogvh5150 on Dec-30-2003 00:50:

Got any proof such as news article links?

nVidia got caught doctoring their drivers that worked for a specific test. Whereas ATi has drivers that are optimized for games. Both vendors are tested in other aspects of their cards. So to say that ATi is cheating is unwarranted.

When Maximum PC found out about this they had to drop down to an older test because those nVidia tweaks were only targeted to the newer test. From a article on the Geforce FX prototype being installed on an Alienware rig:

"...nVidia initially refused to let us benchmark it at all, and relented only when we agreed to limit our tests to pre-approved benchmarks running at stipulated resolutions and AA settings. We gave in to all these conditions because we were intent on reporting the first GeForce FX benchmark scores...".
Now since nVidia did this they are saying "It's not a finished product.." but they should really say this "..We might fail under normal testing guidelines against our competitor..".

According to Futuremark: "...Parts of the program code have been changed so that possible 3DMark03 specific optimizations in current drivers will not work. 3DMark03 specific optimizations in drivers are against run rules of 3DMark03, because they invalidate the performance measurement results and thus make it impossible to compare performances of different hardware...". These changes have been reflected in a patch to 3DMark03.

Based on that any mudslinging against ATi by nVidia zealots would be useless since nVidia was caught cheating plain and simple.


Don't hate da playa, hate da game.


Posted by TheDemon on Dec-30-2003 05:51:

either your're better off with radeon 9600 or radeon 9800 (regular or xt versions) depending on your money situation. install direct x 9.0b and you're set. dont bother with nvidia. most benchmarks are proving radeon is much better and even better when direct x9.0b is installed. oh and incase you wondering why, because the pipelines with the radeon archeticture are much smaller so they send informatin much faster.



Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.