What's a good video card out there?

[sunstorm]

well,

this is only my opinion but since computing power is doubling every 18 months, and the way nvidia's dishing out new cards every few months or so, i think the waiting time between each upgrade of a cpu and graphics card is about 12 months.

no kidding, just buy the median at the time when the 12 months are up and you'll do fine and maybe still be able to sell of your exsiting cpu or graphics card to less computer savvy users.

it has worked for me.

:laser:

[mr2000jp]

i bought a geforce 2 mx 32MB ram not a long time ago and i think that it gives me all i need from a graphics card.
120$ is a fair price for such power i think.
dont forget that nvidia is the best company to give software and updated drivers for its products (in my opinion).

[chp]

I own a AIW RADEON and I use this card for ePSXe in OpenGL mode with the latest drivers under W95se and W2K. This card realy rocks.

[Xenomorph]

The best... MATROX G-100 4Mb! I got that one!

[SanDRocK]

I'd have to say for the price, The GForce2 MX 32Meg is your best bet, espceialy if u get the tv out model ( i payed 5 bucks more for tv out)

[JAZ]

Originally posted by unknown4x
:shout: like what im about to say!!!!
First of all the radeon has a lack of updates, and there's some games it looks pretty bad on!
Second of all geforce2 mx beats radeons at almost all aspects speed (not features) - and is much cheaper and configurable at 59$-129$
and geforce2 mx kills with its 64mb version... pretty fast.... industry-standard cheap etc.

errr geforce 2 mx beats radeon at all aspects/speed????
dont know how u figure this out m8.I have a radeon 64 and it storms over my friends 32mx.
For example I run q3 at 1280x1024 everything 32 bit maxed out,lod @8 and anisotrophy @ 128.It looks amazing and runs @ 50fps.but his mx cant manage 50fps at 1024X700.
As for updates its true ati has a bad record in this but they seem to put a lot more effort in to supporting the radeon.
I paid only £50 more for my radion64 ddr than he did for his mx and it seems money welll spent it has great dvd playback ,I can record from/output to the tv as well.
Its true all geforces beat my card at low res and 16 bit colour but who runs at these configs if u dont need to.
I agree that if he doesnt want to spend much money then an mx is good value but its on its last legs now,sure it runs most now games but next gen 1's?doubtfull...
Any way good luck with whatever card u get.
Im not moaning at u unknown4x but it seems people have a blind love of these n-vidia cards....
o and as psx games are mostly 2d (if not all 2d,im not sure how it works) then the 2d quality is up there with the matrox cards

[chp]

I agree with you, When I play I never use this anoyng res of 640*480*16.
I bought a PC not a gameboy....

I made some testings between me and one friend with a Geforce GTS and in OpenGL at 1024*768*32 in UT and I beat him hands down. The RADEON is a very good card for general use not only designed for UT.

Even in ePSXe at 1024*768*32 Pete's OpenGL plugin, I realy have goods perfs (and quality) in FF8 battles and all the others games too.

I dont have a 1.2 Ghz AMD with 256MB of RAM,I have a PIII runing at 733 and W2K as OS because I saw too many problems due to W98se and ME(memory flaws and not reliable for multi-threading).

You realy want perfs? go to W2K... and ATI RADEON (The latests drivers for W2K are great).

[Gam3rX]

i'd suggest you buy geforce2
it's great ,i own one and i love it very much
btw,mine is asusv7700 deluxe
it has tv in/out ,3d stereo glass ,etc
geforce2 rules man

btw, onejaz
maybe your performance surpass your friend's because you use different
processor,harddisk,ram etc.

[LanGaidin]

Gam3rX, I doubt it. I'm looking for a new vid card also, and the benchmarks I'm seeing at review sites generally show that the Radeon is faster than the GeForce2 MX. Note that we're talking about the MX, not the GTS (Which is what the ASUS V7700 Deluxe is, IIRC).

Everything I've read says that in 32-bit color depth, the Radeon 32MB SDR is about the same speed as a GeForce2 MX 32MB. And, the Radeon 32MB DDR is about the same speed as a GeForce2 MX 64MB. The prices match up about the same way ($80 and $130 respectively).

However, according to Pricewatch, you can get an Asus Geforce2 GTS Pure 32MB retail box for $140. This is supposed to be quite a bit faster than the Radeon 32MB DDR and the MX 64MB, so for $10 is probably worth it. The basic equivalent of this is the Radeon 64MB DDR, but the price on it starts at about $170 (Although it does have the Vid In/Out, so might be worth the extra $30). You also get the great 2D, and the unbeatable DVD onboard decoding with the Radeons... Plus the Radeons are specifically designed to take full advantage of DX8, so once games start doing so, it will probably have a good leg up over the GF2 MX. Of course, by that time, the GeForce 3's and Radeon 2's will probably be the value cards, so that's sorta a moot point.


o and as psx games are mostly 2d (if not all 2d,im not sure how it works) then the 2d quality is up there with the matrox cards

Um, what are you smoking? PSX games mostly 2D? Well, okay, I guess that's technically true, but considering that only about 10% of all PSX games are worth playing (Unless perhaps if you're Japanese or really like dating and train sims), the vast majority (Notice MAJORITY, not all, so keep the flames in check. ) of the games that are worth playing are definitely 3D. However, the point about the ATI 2D being pretty awesome is still true...

However, even with the Radeon's slightly edging out the GF2 MX's, I can't help but think about the times I've been burned by ATI when it comes to drivers (The Rage 128 drivers finally made it become a decent contender for the TNT2 around last Fall... Too bad they were both way outdated by then. :/). I know everyone says that ATI is doing better with the Radeon's, but I'm still pretty leary.

Besides, with the price of a GF2 GTS at $140, now, it's probably the best quality for the price, unless you absolutely have to have video out (Or you're looking to spend < $100 as I am, and will probably go with the RadeOn, and hope that ATI comes through for me like they did with their last great card, the original All-In-Wonder - Speaking of which, there is no card out there that can beat the Radeon AIW in the complete coolness & WOW factor!).

[Kelmovrie]

Go for a Geforce 2 is worthy and a neat performance.. especially ASUS Brand. Wish I have that card,Don't go for Winfast goforce 2 mx200 32mb wish I'm using now Lack of performance between other GeForce 2 MX cards.

[Death Metal]

Diamond Stealth III S540 Xtreme. My advice.

http://www.tomshardware.com/graphic/99q3/990920/

[Demigod]

Originally posted by chp
I agree with you, When I play I never use this anoyng res of 640*480*16.
I bought a PC not a gameboy....

I made some testings between me and one friend with a Geforce GTS and in OpenGL at 1024*768*32 in UT and I beat him hands down. The RADEON is a very good card for general use not only designed for UT.

Hey, I play at that resolution (with 32bit color, and FSAA of course )

The Radeon with DDR memory outperforms the GeForce 2 MX at the higher resolutions due to its extra bandwidth. The GeForce 2 MX series only have SDR memory (or 64-bit DDR, which is equal to SDR anyways). I was considering getting a GeForce 2 MX 400 or a Radeon DDR but went with a GeForce 2 GTS 32MB instead (got it for $169 CDN [$110 US], although the price's jumped to $229 now [about $130 US]). I lucked out though, as it actually turned out to be a GeForce 2 Pro The performance of this card is awesome and I highly recommend it.

[SgtGhost]

The ATI Radeon series are nice cards. I have never had any problems with them and that includes drivers’ issues.

I currently have a GeForce 3 Ti 500 and an ATI Radeon 8500, both are performing very well. Most games are nicer on the ATI, but just a tad slower compare to the GeForce 3 Ti 500. But seriously, does anyone really see a difference between 190 fps and 200fps? I don’t think so.

I like both cards, so it’s a thought question to answer.

[Demigod]

Originally posted by SgtGhost
The ATI Radeon series are nice cards. I have never had any problems with them and that includes drivers’ issues.

I currently have a GeForce 3 Ti 500 and an ATI Radeon 8500, both are performing very well. Most games are nicer on the ATI, but just a tad slower compare to the GeForce 3 Ti 500. But seriously, does anyone really see a difference between 190 fps and 200fps? I don’t think so.

I like both cards, so it’s a thought question to answer.

Four words: Full-Scene Anti-Aliasing

FSAA tends to drop frames to something more tangible

[ToM_E]

Geforce 3 or Radeon 8500. Whatever you want to get...or just wait till geforce 4 and get it. It will come out soon.

[SgtGhost]

Demigod79:

What are you babbling about?

What does FSAA has to do with my last message? Did I even mention that FSAA was the cause for the Radeon being a bit slower then the GF3? The Answer is NO.

Stop quoting me without taking the proper time to analyze my posts.


Thank you!
Sarge

[Demigod]

Originally posted by SgtGhost
[b]But seriously, does anyone really see a difference between 190 fps and 200fps? I don’t think so.

This was the part I was referring to. Just pointing out that with 4xFSAA even the mighty GF3 and Radeon 8500 tends to drop below the 60 fps mark.

BTW, I never said anything about FSAA being the cause for the Radeon being a bit slower. You just didn't seem to take it into consideration when analyzing the cards.

[Ryos]

Considering this thread was started nine months ago, I'd assume the original poster has already decided on what he wanted. It's a good idea to check the dates.

[Phuzzi]

Originally posted by SgtGhost
Demigod79:

What are you babbling about?

What does FSAA has to do with my last message? Did I even mention that FSAA was the cause for the Radeon being a bit slower then the GF3? The Answer is NO.

Stop quoting me without taking the proper time to analyze my posts.


Thank you!
Sarge

You need to spend a little more time thinking about what people are saying, before just spouting an angry reply like that.

The point is that you said 'But seriously, does anyone really see a difference between 190 fps and 200fps'.
Now of course you're right, but then demigods point is that with cards with that much power, you'd be a fool not to enable FSAA, as the fps hit incurred isn't going to be noticable unless it drops below 60fps.

So that is what FSAA had to do with your last message.

[sonicfoot]

umm.......i dont know how much i can get a radeon 64 for since some of you say its faster than a geforce 2mx, but is a geforce 2mx 400 64mb for £60( i live in england) worth it?