Graphics Cards

Ian

Ian

Administrator
Joined
Feb 23, 2002
Messages
19,878
Reaction score
1,509
What sort of Graphics cards are people here using? I had a GF2 GTS up until last week, then I swapped it for my sisters GF4 MX480... it is certainly slightly faster.

Anyway... I hear people raving about using GF4 Ti4600's, GF FX's and ATI 9700s... Do you they really make that much of a difference with current games? I am running games like Freelancer, RTCW, MOHAA and other pretty new games in 1024x768 with 4xAA and full details - at very high frame rates!
 
There are only a few games out at the moment that realy push a GeForce4, but they tend to be the ones that are designed around the newer engines. Unreal 's new engine is used in UT2003 and Unreal2, and a modified version is used in Splinter cell and Rainbow6 Raven Shield, for example. All these can look pretty good with a GeForce4) but you probably wouldn't be able to turn everything up to the max unless you've got a 128Mb Ti4200 (to overclock) or higher. GeForce4 MX is one to be avoided unless you really want to spend as little as possible and you don't intend to play games like Doom3, Quake4, Unreal2, Half Life2, etc...with full graphics effects). Many would say that a top end GeForce3 is actually better then a GeForce4 MX.

Unreal2 was shipped with some of the graphics effects removed because no card existed that could exploit them. As I understand it, these are to emerge now that GeForceFX and top end ATI Radeons have pushed the hardware envelope further.

I have an Abit Siluro 128Mb GeForce4 Ti4600...the standard Ti4600 chipset of course, but Abit slapped a superb heatsink and fan on it that covers all the hot bits. It originally shipped at around £200, but then got rave reviews and was pushed up to £280!! I will be upgrading to either an nVidea GeForceFX Ultra 5800 or whatever ATI brings out to beat it around September, when Half Life 2 is due for release. I will probably have to spend a fortune doing this, and my current card is probably good enough to mean I won't need to...but, hey...I want to see absolutely everything in that game 8)

If your current card is running all the games that you like to play, and running them well, then you don't need to consider a change, but if you want to start playing some of the newer games, you could be struggling soon. If you aren't having problems turning all effects to the max then check the game engines that you are playing, even some recent games are still based on modified Quake 3 engines (or of same generation) and most average cards can run that quite easily. Perhaps the best thing to do is check your 3DMark score...I'll be surprised if it runs all of the tests (probably won't be able to handle the advanced pixel shaders)...but if it does, then stick with it until current GeForceFX's and latest ATI's start to drop in price.

If you tell me what you would be willing to spend on a new card, i'll give you some idea of a 'best bang for you buck' buy.;)
 
It runs 1 of 4 3DMark 2003 tests ;) lol

I'm pretty much waiting for the next gen cards to appear and reduce in price before I upgrade, something on the GeForce FX level - at the moment it does all I need... this will change when Doom III is released ;)
 
LOL...sorry, Ian, i should have said: NOT 3D Mark 2003 !!! all nVidea cards run badly on it compared to ATI's...I meant 3DMark 2001 SE...I'd guess you should be hitting the 3,000-4,000 (just a wild guess!) at 1024X768x32, and you will probably be able to run most of the tests. the ones you probably won't see include a scene with a cottage, trees and a stream, and another one with fish swimming through water...:brow: (As a comparison, I get a score of around 10,000 with no overclocking 8)...but I know people who achieve more by tweaking their Ti4200's)

I think your dead right to wait for a while yet...I'm waiting for a clear leader to emerge between nVidea and ATI...hopefully that will happen by Sept.8) :D

The card I put in my thread on the 'Ultimate self-build' currently costs £480, by the way...if you see a tramp-like figure begging in the street, please give generously, as i'm saving up:D
 
I'm using an ATI Radeon 8500 with 128MB Ram on my main rig atm. As 1nteger says, Unreal2003 and UT2003 will test any card.

In those games I'm OK until I go up to 1600 x 1200 resolution, then during intense activity it can stutter a little. Other than that, no probs with any games atm.

I tried to run 3d Mark 03 and it balked at the third test at first. I was overclocked by 500Mhz. When I put the CPU back to stock speed, it ran the test all the way through OK, but I could see it struggling.

I think my final mark was around 1383.

I'd really like an ATI 9800 Pro, but they're way too much money and you just know they'll halve in price in 6 months time. I think best bang for the buck right now would be the 9500 Pro, which can be overclocked to equal a 9700.
 
Here we go, just ran it again, 1323 :(

3dmark2.jpg
 
I just ran 3DMark03 at the same settings and got a score of 1647...no overclocking. The new 3DMark programme has annoyed a hell of a lot of nVidea people!! LOL
 
Hi Integer

You say you get around 10.000 on 3dmark 2001, with your setup I would have thought you should be getting alot more than that and as I have a ti4200 and a 2500+barton and only 512 of ddr333 running on a GA7 VA and I get 12.101, just thought with you having more mem and better mobo you would have been getting around the same as me.
 
Or maybe I have got your specs wrong but I am going off what it says at the bottem of your posts, and it says you have a 5900 fx which I thought would gain a bigger score than the one you have posted with you having 1gb of cosair and 2700+, anyway maybe I got it wrong do post and let me know thanks.
 
I just read again and it seems if I have read properly that you were useing a ti4200 allso when you got the 10.000 score in 3d mark 2001.
 
Hi Genius, and welcome to the forum!:)

You are partly right and partly wrong m8...
First, my signature was updated recently when i built my new rig, so it automatically updates on all my posts, even the old ones. At the time I posted that message about 3DMark scores, i was running an XP2100 with a Ti4600 and 512Mb PC2700 Samsung RAM, with no overclocking and at 3DMark's default settings (1024x768x32).

However, you're absolutely right...if I were getting those scores with my current system, I wouldn't be able to see my screen for tears!!

I am comfortably getting over 15000 in 3DMark01 and over 6,000 in 3DMark03...but that's with some overclocking of the card.

My card isn't an Ultra, but I have run it stable at 471/947MHz with 3DMark03...that compares to an Ultra's default of 450/850...so I reckon i did well by saving myself about £100!!:D 8) ;)
 
Ian Cunningham said:
What sort of Graphics cards are people here using? I had a GF2 GTS up until last week, then I swapped it for my sisters GF4 MX480... it is certainly slightly faster.

Anyway... I hear people raving about using GF4 Ti4600's, GF FX's and ATI 9700s... Do you they really make that much of a difference with current games? I am running games like Freelancer, RTCW, MOHAA and other pretty new games in 1024x768 with 4xAA and full details - at very high frame rates!
Click to expand...
been away from the pc for a couple of years, been on the xbox.Anyway, justb got a new motherboard,AMD 2800 and a fx5700.Halo slows down on any setting over 600 by 400. Should I try to exchange my graphics card for something top end, and if so ,wwhat is the most cost effective route.
 
Last edited:
Halo's an odd one. It's probably the most demanding game grafix-wise that's out there atm.

It was a bad conversion to PC from an X-Box game.

Even with a 9800 Pro I can't run it on max. 1084 x 768 at medium settings is the best I can do with a 9800 Pro. Runs good though.

I know it's becoming a cliche round these parts, but consider a 9800 Pro. About £125.00 to £135.00, depending on where you shop.

This card will also run every game currently available with no sweat. And Half Life 2.

Other than that, you're looking at at least a £250.00 - £350.00 budget for a better video card.
 
No doubt on getting the 9800pro! It is, and has been for a long time, the best bang for your buck. You can get it for £119.99 delivered from LOW. Thats the cheapest you'll find, if you can beat that, or even come in a £10 radius delivered I would be suprised :o.

Halo was just a poorly converted game, it was bloody fantastic on the Xbox. One of my favourite all time games, AI, story, graphics and just pure genius made it what it was. Even with all the settings on highest it doesnt look as good on PC compared to Xbox :(.

Games dont really need the fastest processor in the world to play with settings high, it helps of course, but loadsa memory and a good graphics card will make a bigger impact (so long as you have a processor 2Ghz+).

But i reckon you should get the 9800pro anyway, you and your computer deserve it ;).

Heres a very helpful set of charts showing with are/is the best graphics card on the market. http://graphics.tomshardware.com/graphic/20041004/index.html
 
Back
Top