new graphics card

  • Thread starter Thread starter GT
  • Start date Start date
G

GT

I asked a graphics card question the other day and we all got side-tracked a
little, but when I asked a side question, it was missed...

Is there anywhere (web?) that has a comparrisson table for graphics cards
both old and new? All the comparisson tables compare cards of a simaler era
using games of the time, nothing compares the generations directly.

I want to know how much faster a newer card would be compared to my AGP 64MB
Radeon 8500. Is is worth me upgrading at all? How much would it cost me to
be able to run some modern games - Area 51 + car racing Sims for example.
With our new baby arriving, I don't have spare cash for the PC any more, but
Area 51 struggles even at 640x480 sometimes!! I'm not bothered about
anti-aliasing or the other anti-thing, I just want good frame rates at
1024x768 or even better, 1280x1024 in games such as Area 51.

What do I buy for under £100, preferably nearer £50??
 
I asked a graphics card question the other day and we all got side-tracked a
little, but when I asked a side question, it was missed...

Is there anywhere (web?) that has a comparrisson table for graphics cards
both old and new? All the comparisson tables compare cards of a simaler era
using games of the time, nothing compares the generations directly.
Click to expand...

Tom's Hardware vga charts
http://www.tomshardware.com/graphic/vga_charts.html

That's about as good as it gets.
You may not find good comparisions of very old to newer
cards because the comparisons aren't applicable. Old cards
won't even run new games and new cards are optimized for
newer DIrectX effects, not just linear framerate increases
like old generations of cards. On other words, (I'll invent
fictional numbers for this example:) a Radeon 8500 might be
40% as fast as a Geforce 6800 at a 5 year old game, but only
10% as fast at a new game.

I want to know how much faster a newer card would be compared to my AGP 64MB
Radeon 8500. Is is worth me upgrading at all?
Click to expand...

If you are not a gamer, no it's pointless to upgrade.

If you are a gamer, you should already know quite clearly
that Radeon 8500 can't even play new games at playable
framerates. So, for modern 3D gaming, yes it is manditory to
upgrade the card.

How much would it cost me to
be able to run some modern games - Area 51 + car racing Sims for example.
Click to expand...

You could spend $80 and then wish you'd spent more 1 year
from now if not 2 months later? Frankly the best value is
around $150, find a deal on a Geforce 6800 (not LE and not
GT). If you can't find one around that price, look at
Geforce 6600GT, or regular 6600 even cheaper.

However, with that old card I wonder what the rest of your
system is like. If it's as old as the card, you'll need a
newer system to reap most of the benefit from a new card.

With our new baby arriving, I don't have spare cash for the PC any more, but
Area 51 struggles even at 640x480 sometimes!! I'm not bothered about
anti-aliasing or the other anti-thing, I just want good frame rates at
1024x768 or even better, 1280x1024 in games such as Area 51.

What do I buy for under £100, preferably nearer £50??
Click to expand...


Radeon 9600 Pro? Depends, if your CPU isn't modern and you
don't have at least 512MB+ system memory, you ought to hold
onto the $$ till later.
 
I just don't know what to pick, but I need more graphics power on the
smallest budget I can get away with. Can anyone say if these cards would be
significantly faster than my 64MB 8500 at modern games (Area51)?

Club3D Radeon 9600, 256MB DDR, 128bit
Sapphire RADEON 9550 - 256 MB
Club FX5200-256

Are they be in a different league, or would I not really notice a
difference?
 
I just don't know what to pick, but I need more graphics power on the
smallest budget I can get away with. Can anyone say if these cards would be
significantly faster than my 64MB 8500 at modern games (Area51)?

Club3D Radeon 9600, 256MB DDR, 128bit
Sapphire RADEON 9550 - 256 MB
Club FX5200-256

Are they be in a different league, or would I not really notice a
difference?
Click to expand...

You did not mention your system so we have no way to know
where your bottleneck is. Without knowing that, it's
impossible to project how much benefit any of the above
cards will provide.

Ignoring that, yes the above cards will be a significant
improvement, the Radeon 9600 is better than FX5200. If you
want nVidia, go for at least a 6600.
 
GT wrote:

" Are they be in a different league, or would I not really notice a
difference? "


Forget 256MB cards; You'll be paying more for a card that has slower
RAM. 128MB equivalents will cost you less, and have faster RAM chips.

You can have this from me for £40 (including recorded delivery):

*** MSI GEFORCE FX5700-TD128 (128MB AGP8x) ***

Original box, complete with...
- DVI-to-VGA adapter
- TV-out lead
- Manual

Software bundle includes...
- MSI Multimedia Beyond 3D
- MSI 3D Desktop
- MSI Media Center Deluxe II
- VirtualDrive Professional
- RestoreIT! Professional
- InterVideo WinDVD 5.1 channel
- Supreme Foreign Language Learning Machine

Games bundle includes...
- Duke Nukem: Manhattan Project
- Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon
- The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind
- Games Collection: 7-in-1 (Demos)

The fan shows no sign of wearing / giving-up.

Product on MSI website. http://tinyurl.com/bbbtu
Comparison of FX5700 128MB and other cards. http://tinyurl.com/69nj3
 
kony said:
You did not mention your system so we have no way to know
where your bottleneck is. Without knowing that, it's
impossible to project how much benefit any of the above
cards will provide.
Click to expand...

Sorry - didn't think to do that. I think its the graphics card that is
struggling, but how would anyone else know if I don't tell you the rest! I
have an XP2500, 2GB PC2700 (swap file forced to none), Samsung 160GB HD and
my trusty old 64MB radeon 8500. All games are fine except for the most
recent. The game that has sparked my interest in upgrading my graphics is
Area 51. I just recently got SCAR and it plays almost smoothly at 1600x1200
with 'depth of field' and 'cubic environment' turned off.
 
Sorry - didn't think to do that. I think its the graphics card that is
struggling, but how would anyone else know if I don't tell you the rest! I
have an XP2500, 2GB PC2700 (swap file forced to none), Samsung 160GB HD and
my trusty old 64MB radeon 8500. All games are fine except for the most
recent. The game that has sparked my interest in upgrading my graphics is
Area 51. I just recently got SCAR and it plays almost smoothly at 1600x1200
with 'depth of field' and 'cubic environment' turned off.
Click to expand...


Yes your video card is by far the largest bottleneck and you
would gain significantly from replacing it.
 
Cuzman said:
GT wrote:

" Are they be in a different league, or would I not really notice a
difference? "


Forget 256MB cards; You'll be paying more for a card that has slower RAM.
128MB equivalents will cost you less, and have faster RAM chips.

You can have this from me for £40 (including recorded delivery):

*** MSI GEFORCE FX5700-TD128 (128MB AGP8x) ***
Click to expand...

Thanks for the offer, but I think I am going to go for Radeon (9600 Pro/Xt
or 9800 Pro/XT). I prefer radeon over NVidia and I have a radeon card now so
it should be easier to upgrade!
 
Thanks for the offer, but I think I am going to go for Radeon (9600 Pro/Xt
or 9800 Pro/XT). I prefer radeon over NVidia and I have a radeon card now so
it should be easier to upgrade!
Click to expand...


Being a Radeon it may even be harder than an nVidia (or any
other) card, not easier. ATI drivers are piss-poor when it
comes to uninstalling so if anything it's harder to switch
to same family of card because there might be mixed driver
remnants left behind. Uninstall the old driver before
putting the new card in then manually set standard VGA mode.
If that isn't enough then Google for an "ATI driver
cleaner".

If it weren't that nVidia's FX5xxx series is slower in your
price range, (that is, if your budget were higher) I'd have
suggested nVidia cards for driver issues/prevention alone.
 
Back
Top