This topic is locked
wich graphix card ? --> check this link and find out yourself
http://www.tomshardw...-charts-06.html
Advertisement
What GFXcard is best?
MultiQuote
#12
rashly (old) 
- Joined: 08-February 04
- Posts: 352
- Locationlong island
Posted 07 May 2004 - 10:09 PM
tom is an nvidia advocate. thats been known for a while now. that graph you posted is so redundant on current hardware (who the hell runs q3 at 1024 with no fsa or af on current 3d hardware?).
no use spending 150$ or 100$ for a video card just for quake3. go buy a 30$ video card from 4 years ago if you want to run quake3 fine.
now, if you want to run quake 3 with high res, high fsaa, and high af, then look at how the cards in your price trange are going to perform in those situations. any card these days can run quake 3 at the highest settings with no fsaa or af (q3 is highly cpu limited right now with the new cards), but if you want to turn on fsaa and af then go with the card that does better at those for your price point. anyone who boasts that they run q3 at 200fps is an idiot. crank up the fsaa and af and you wont tell the difference in framerate between 100fps and 250fps.
the 9600xt is better in both fsaa and af. the 9600xt is also much better in sm2 games (you want to play hl2 and d3 decently, right?). this is all compared to the 5700ultra with gdr3 (and the 9600xt is 10$ cheaper).
if you play only q3 and dont want fsaa and af turned on, then go with the 5700u. if you want those features on, and have the ability to play newer games, then go with the 9600xt. hell, you can even find a 9800pro now for $210.
no use spending 150$ or 100$ for a video card just for quake3. go buy a 30$ video card from 4 years ago if you want to run quake3 fine.
now, if you want to run quake 3 with high res, high fsaa, and high af, then look at how the cards in your price trange are going to perform in those situations. any card these days can run quake 3 at the highest settings with no fsaa or af (q3 is highly cpu limited right now with the new cards), but if you want to turn on fsaa and af then go with the card that does better at those for your price point. anyone who boasts that they run q3 at 200fps is an idiot. crank up the fsaa and af and you wont tell the difference in framerate between 100fps and 250fps.
the 9600xt is better in both fsaa and af. the 9600xt is also much better in sm2 games (you want to play hl2 and d3 decently, right?). this is all compared to the 5700ultra with gdr3 (and the 9600xt is 10$ cheaper).
if you play only q3 and dont want fsaa and af turned on, then go with the 5700u. if you want those features on, and have the ability to play newer games, then go with the 9600xt. hell, you can even find a 9800pro now for $210.
#13 Guest_fpk
Posted 08 May 2004 - 02:35 AM
Quote
anything that does not have the letters A-T-I on it.
right even though latest in-game benchmarks prove that 9800/X800 are faster than their competitors from NVIDIA.
The only reason to go with nvidia is if you want GOOD linux drivers (ati's are "OK" but not near the quality of the nvidia's)
getting sick of os's unprofessional and useless replies. The man asks for information, not a shitty opinion
#14 Guest__iCeCold_
Posted 08 May 2004 - 02:35 AM
wow! thx for the ideas dudes! )
if I look at the chart gf5600 ultra 128 mb looks like the fastest card for the money I can spend. 119 euro if I order on the internet...
I have to check if will be fast for newer games also!!
_No Where To Run_
_iCeCold_
)if I look at the chart gf5600 ultra 128 mb looks like the fastest card for the money I can spend. 119 euro if I order on the internet...
I have to check if will be fast for newer games also!!_No Where To Run_
_iCeCold_
Advertisement
#16
L3mMinG (old)
- Joined: 20-February 04
- Posts: 862
Posted 08 May 2004 - 04:15 AM
I'd wait another month or 2 until doom 3 comes out and save yourself another upgrade so soon
The benchmarks are all biased since directX cards got squat to do with ET or quake3 and getting a card 4 years old is bullox as well since urt and et both need a lot faster card. Like I said, my gf3 is fine on urt but fails to impress on et
The benchmarks are all biased since directX cards got squat to do with ET or quake3 and getting a card 4 years old is bullox as well since urt and et both need a lot faster card. Like I said, my gf3 is fine on urt but fails to impress on et
#18
FragginNewby (old)
- Joined: 07-February 04
- Posts: 2,026
- LocationKilladelphia, PA
Posted 09 May 2004 - 04:05 PM
I like my Radeon 9600 - as I have used both NVIDIA and ATI, I can say that (for me anyway) the ATI cards have been great!
I started with a Radeon 8500, moved to a FX5200, now use the Radeon 9600 and am quite happy with my performance and quality... and in addition to q3 mods, I also play BF1942, DC, BFVietnam, CoD and have had no problems at all with my setup (and I use the Omega Drivers!)
I started with a Radeon 8500, moved to a FX5200, now use the Radeon 9600 and am quite happy with my performance and quality... and in addition to q3 mods, I also play BF1942, DC, BFVietnam, CoD and have had no problems at all with my setup (and I use the Omega Drivers!)
#19
ikcam (old)
- Joined: 07-February 04
- Posts: 134
- LocationSLC, UT
Posted 11 May 2004 - 05:08 AM
Newby wrote:
I play the same games as Newby and I have a FX5500 with 256ddr400 memory. I have no problems with it.
Quote
... and in addition to q3 mods, I also play BF1942, DC, BFVietnam, CoD and have had no problems at all with my setup
I play the same games as Newby and I have a FX5500 with 256ddr400 memory. I have no problems with it.
#20
rashly (old)
- Joined: 08-February 04
- Posts: 352
- Locationlong island
Posted 12 May 2004 - 02:07 AM
all of those are based on the quake3 engine, 5 year old technology. an fx5600 crawls when some ps20 shaders are added.
1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users
Sponsored link
