Whats a good video card to buy ?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Brad
  • Start date Start date
B

Brad

Im getting a new system and my old athlon 1.4 ghz and AIW 9600 XT is too
slow now.


Whats a good card for gaming ? The x1900 sounds like a popular card for a
decent price.

Any suggestions for a video card ( or CPU) is appreciated.
 
CPU get an intel core 2 duo

GFX depends on if you are wanting vista and dx10

get a good PSU
 
CPU get an intel core 2 duo
GFX depends on if you are wanting vista and dx10

get a good PSU

So far I see the intel E6600 looks to be the best power for the price, and a
x1950xt.

Im not fully sure about getting Vista or not. I see very many complaints of
bugs to be resolved still. I think I may be better waiting for awhile until
more fixes come out. What about dx10 ? Will that not run under Xp or
something ?
 
Brad said:
Im getting a new system and my old athlon 1.4 ghz and AIW 9600 XT is too
slow now.


Whats a good card for gaming ? The x1900 sounds like a popular card for a
decent price.

Any suggestions for a video card ( or CPU) is appreciated.

I will buy a Core 2 6600 CPU and keep XP. The 2 or 3 DX10 games, which
are announced for release this year are not for me (Crysis, Halo).
I will keep my GeForce 7950Gt card. When DX10 cards will need not more
power than my old card, I will buy one. The new ATI DX10 card needs
about 200 watt, its crazy. The price for power is raising every year,
here in Germany. From now on, I will look at the power consumption, when
I buy a new PC.

Michael
 
Im getting a new system and my old athlon 1.4 ghz and AIW 9600 XT is too
slow now.


Whats a good card for gaming ? The x1900 sounds like a popular card for a
decent price.

Any suggestions for a video card ( or CPU) is appreciated.

heresy I know, but the nvidia GT8800's either the 640Meg ram or
320Meg ram are without peer. ATI's going through a rough stretch
right now. I wouldn't waste money on a cheaper card than the 320Meg
versions gt8800.
 
heresy I know, but the nvidia GT8800's either the 640Meg ram or
320Meg ram are without peer. ATI's going through a rough stretch
right now. I wouldn't waste money on a cheaper card than the 320Meg
versions gt8800.

It's not quite that cut and dried. Depending on processor, speed,
motherboard, chip set, and program I found the X1950 XT to be
noticeably faster in this machine. (Athlon 64 X 2 FX62 - stock core
speed = 2.8 Gig - on an ASUS M2N SLI Deluxe - 570 chip set) compared
to the 8800 GTS 640 when it came to FSX and running HD viseo. I've
spent a good many hours switching cards back and fourth while tweaking
because I was having a hard time accepting the 8800 being slower.
Installing AMD's dual core criver and the XP driver made the most
improvement but the Sapphire ATI X1950XT 256 is still a tad faster
funning FSX and video than the BFG 8800 640. I also found the drivers
that came with the 8800 to be faster than the latest ones (In this
machine). I have an Athlon 64 X 2 6000 (stock core speed = 3.0 Gig)
on a GIGABYTE GA-M59SLI-S5 590SLI AM2 (590 chip set) in my shop that
*appears* to be faster with the 8800, but I've not yet had the time to
run the comparrisons on that one.
 
Roger said:
On Sat, 26 May 2007 05:56:57 -0800, mad john wrote:
-
On Fri, 18 May 2007 09:15:09 GMT, "Brad" (e-mail address removed) wrote:
-
Im getting a new system and my old athlon 1.4 ghz and AIW 9600 XT i
too
slow now.


Whats a good card for gaming ? The x1900 sounds like a popular car
for a
decent price.

Any suggestions for a video card ( or CPU) is appreciated.

-

heresy I know, but the nvidia GT8800's either the 640Meg ram or
320Meg ram are without peer. ATI's going through a rough stretch
right now. I wouldn't waste money on a cheaper card than the 320Meg
versions gt8800. -

It's not quite that cut and dried. Depending on processor, speed,
motherboard, chip set, and program I found the X1950 XT to be
noticeably faster in this machine. (Athlon 64 X 2 FX62 - stock core
speed = 2.8 Gig - on an ASUS M2N SLI Deluxe - 570 chip set) compared
to the 8800 GTS 640 when it came to FSX and running HD viseo. I've
spent a good many hours switching cards back and fourth while tweaking
because I was having a hard time accepting the 8800 being slower.
Installing AMD's dual core criver and the XP driver made the most
improvement but the Sapphire ATI X1950XT 256 is still a tad faster
funning FSX and video than the BFG 8800 640. I also found the drivers
that came with the 8800 to be faster than the latest ones (In this
machine). I have an Athlon 64 X 2 6000 (stock core speed = 3.0 Gig)
on a GIGABYTE GA-M59SLI-S5 590SLI AM2 (590 chip set) in my shop that
*appears* to be faster with the 8800, but I've not yet had the time to
run the comparrisons on that one.


i totaly agree, i did lots of tests, using the 8800 GTS 320mb and th
X1950 XTX 256, and on a ABIT AT8 32x, and the x1950 was faster, am no
an SLI fan at all, but ATI seem's to be on the fast lane now, and AT
are holding back, ATI were always better in image quality in ther
cards, and they were better in there driver support, nVidia's cuppor
was a joke, but now they are working better, i would not put my mone
on anything but an ATI, i just trust them more then nVidia, but i woul
recommend nVidia becuse i'ev noticed customers asking for 8800's mor
then ATI's and when i'ev had a chance to test 8800GTX 640, it wa
powerfull, on several boards, and you get lots of drivers, + DX1
support, which for me isnt very important but ppl like to get th
latest of the latest, if you know what i mean!! so i got more SL
boards and more nVidia cards, and C2D's to please the market!!
 
I will buy a Core 2 6600 CPU and keep XP. The 2 or 3 DX10 games, which

As an opinion I think the e6600 currently represents the best
speed/value available. Until the last price drop I would have went
with the slightly slower Athlon FX62, or the newer 64 X2 6000 eith the
6000 representing a very good buy that runs cool.
are announced for release this year are not for me (Crysis, Halo).
I will keep my GeForce 7950Gt card. When DX10 cards will need not more
power than my old card, I will buy one. The new ATI DX10 card needs

I doubt that will happen at least for quite some time. I expect the DX
10 cards to remain top-end for quite some time and very power hungry
just due to their very nature with the current top end DX9 cards
moving to very good prices after the DX 10 cards are widely available
AND there are a number of games available to take advantageof DX10.
about 200 watt, its crazy. The price for power is raising every year,

How about 300 and up under full load?
here in Germany. From now on, I will look at the power consumption, when
I buy a new PC.

This computer is runnning an FX62 with an 8800GTS 640. With 3 500 Gig
SATAII drives, plus one external 500 gig SATA and a 22" wide screen
monitor (226BW), 3 120 mm case fans along with a large CPU cooler it
is drawing 233 warrs.

The 64 X2 6000 with the X1950XT is drawing less power but it's not
handy (out in my shop) to get a specific reading. It also has 3
internal 500 Gig SATA II drives plus 2, 320 Gig PATA drives and one
SATA DVD/CD R/W drive

I have both XP Pro and XP64 pro, dual boot on both machines. I *may*
set one up to run FSX (MS Flight sim) with Vista on one that will not
be on the internet, but it depends on the reports of how FSX runs with
DX10.
 
Roger said:
On Sat, 19 May 2007
This computer is runnning an FX62 with an 8800GTS 640. With 3 500 Gig
SATAII drives, plus one external 500 gig SATA and a 22" wide screen
monitor (226BW), 3 120 mm case fans along with a large CPU cooler it
is drawing 233 warrs.

The 64 X2 6000 with the X1950XT is drawing less power but it's not
handy (out in my shop) to get a specific reading. It also has 3
internal 500 Gig SATA II drives plus 2, 320 Gig PATA drives and one
SATA DVD/CD R/W drive

I have both XP Pro and XP64 pro, dual boot on both machines. I *may*
set one up to run FSX (MS Flight sim) with Vista on one that will not
be on the internet, but it depends on the reports of how FSX runs with
DX10.
-

Michael-

i know what you'er talking about, however, power consumption, change
when applying loads, like playing games for long hours, a PSU gets hot
and when hot produces less accurate load, and low quality PSU's fail i
this case, however its is recommended to get a PSU obove atleaste 50
Watts when using a highend card like 8800 GTS, or the 1950 xtx in ther
requirments lists.

a long time ago i hade a PC with a PSU that comes with the case, ver
cheap!!, i installed a X 850 GT (was just released) , and the PC woul
work but gets off while running a game for more the 1 hour or so, so
checked the requirments of the card, and it says it needs a PSU wit
350 watts or more, so i checked the PSU, and it was 400WATT's, but whe
i checked about it i found that PSU units that are cheaper then 40$ an
has a unknown brand name, are most likely bad Units , since then,
always follow the reviews, now i always install atleast 550 PS
ThermalTake or OCZ extreme gamer 600, on my gaming computers, for th
SLI - Xfire ones i go with the OCZ 700watts, and no one eve
complained!!, its good to keep an eye for the new PSU and how the
performe in articales and reviews...
 
It's not quite that cut and dried. Depending on processor, speed,
motherboard, chip set, and program I found the X1950 XT to be
noticeably faster in this machine. (Athlon 64 X 2 FX62 - stock core
speed = 2.8 Gig - on an ASUS M2N SLI Deluxe - 570 chip set) compared
to the 8800 GTS 640 when it came to FSX and running HD viseo. I've
spent a good many hours switching cards back and fourth while tweaking
because I was having a hard time accepting the 8800 being slower.
Installing AMD's dual core criver and the XP driver made the most
improvement but the Sapphire ATI X1950XT 256 is still a tad faster
funning FSX and video than the BFG 8800 640. I also found the drivers
that came with the 8800 to be faster than the latest ones (In this
machine). I have an Athlon 64 X 2 6000 (stock core speed = 3.0 Gig)
on a GIGABYTE GA-M59SLI-S5 590SLI AM2 (590 chip set) in my shop that
*appears* to be faster with the 8800, but I've not yet had the time to
run the comparrisons on that one.

Agreed there are some applications that the ATI does well at.
I think the 8800 640Meg is the best bang for the buck though.
~$319 after rebate @newegg. 320Meg version is down in the mid
$200s, but people complain about driver issues with the 320meg
memory. The various reviews pretty much show all that stuff in the
various benchmarks. ATI will be back, just don't hold your breath.
 
i know what you'er talking about, however, power consumption, changes
when applying loads, like playing games for long hours, a PSU gets hot,
and when hot produces less accurate load, and low quality PSU's fail in
this case, however its is recommended to get a PSU obove atleaste 500
Watts when using a highend card like 8800 GTS, or the 1950 xtx in there
requirments lists.

I think the smallest PS I have is 550 watts in an older socket A
machine with a 256 meg ATI Radeon card. The newer machines have 650
and 750 watt supplies. (ThermalTake, Antec, and Xclio).

I'm a firm believer in having good power supplies with enough capacity
to allow for expansion and upgrading. This approach has served me well
for the most part, but the new PCI/SLI motherboards as well as the
20+4 power connectors and the 4 or 8 pin CPU connectors required
upgrading the power supplies a couple of times any way. Also the move
to the new 140 mm single, quiet fan from the push-pull 90mm fans that
were loud was a "by choice" change.
a long time ago i hade a PC with a PSU that comes with the case, very
cheap!!, i installed a X 850 GT (was just released) , and the PC would

I used to purchase inexpensive cases and typically would replace the
cheap power supplies as they wouldn't run all the stuff I crammed in
there any way. I did have one old motherboard in an Aluminum case
with a 400 watt supply that worked quite well for several years, but
it slowly accumulated a HD here and there as well as more case fans.
One day it just up and quit. I discovered it would run fine without
the side fan, but wouldn't even start when I'd connect that little 90
mm fan which was probably drawing excess current. (it did work in a
different computer though) The temperatures were OK so I ran it
without the side fan even knowing I was close to the limit of the PS.
One day the PS failed. It took out almost everything except the HDs
and RAM. Motherboard and CPU were toast.
work but gets off while running a game for more the 1 hour or so, so i
checked the requirments of the card, and it says it needs a PSU with
350 watts or more, so i checked the PSU, and it was 400WATT's, but when
i checked about it i found that PSU units that are cheaper then 40$ and
has a unknown brand name, are most likely bad Units , since then, i

Not necessarily bad, but to say they are rated optimistically might be
an understatement. Also they may have peak limits on each rail that
are added together to get the PS rating rather than continuous rail
ratings. That's another thing I like about the big, name brand
supplies. To top it off you can purchase a name brand supply on-line
with much higher ratings for half the price of going to the local "big
box" stores.

Considering what's riding on them, power supplies are a poor place to
go "cheap".
always follow the reviews, now i always install atleast 550 PSU
ThermalTake or OCZ extreme gamer 600, on my gaming computers, for the
SLI - Xfire ones i go with the OCZ 700watts, and no one ever
complained!!, its good to keep an eye for the new PSU and how they
performe in articales and reviews....

Yup! I go over the reviews thoroughly, bearing in mind some of those
reviews may be a bit out in left field so to speak. (I do pay
attention to who wrote each)<:-))
 
Back
Top