Any midrange PCI-E cards to stay away from?

[mooseracing]

I just had to build a new pc quickly as mine puked, right now I using just a PCI card for temp graphics. But I am using a Tyan Tiger 2887 or 2287 (iirc) board its the dual opty 200 series one.

Anyway the only gaming I do is Madden and NHL, maybe once and awhile some Tom Clancy series stuff. Other than this the machine is used more like a server. I have a 750 watt PSU with dual 12v rails ready for a PCI-E card. I just want something that doesn't draw too much power for what I have and don't want to spend a fortune as I wasn't ready to build another computer yet.

So with that beign said how is a x1800 or x1900 series, or do i need more?

Also what should I use as a tuner card? Or is there good comparos somewhere?

 

[Arkaign]

An X1950 would be great, in fact, I'd recommend the X1950GT, which is super affordable (often $100-$120). Stock, they're faster than the 8600GTS/2400XT, and they overclock really well.

Avoid the 8600GTS/2400XT, they're only for HTPC applications, their DX10 capability is useless because they're so slow. The only good thing about them is the low power requirements, which is moot with your 750w.

THG VGA Charts are a good place to check. Keep in mind that the 1950GT should hit X1950Pro speeds with no problems.

A 7900 series would also work nicely, and they can be found used for under $100.

 

[Binky]

missingremote.com has a good comparison of various tuners. Stick with a dual tuner model that does both analog and HD channels. You can get them in USB, PCI, and PCI-E flavors.

 

[neothe0ne]

Originally posted by: Arkaign
8600GTS/2400XT

Why are you comparing two graphics cards in completely different leagues?

 

[AzN]

Don't listen to Arkaign. It seems he is biased or never tried a 8600gts and 1950pro. I have used both cards they're about equal in performance. 1950gt is not better than 8600gts. 1950pro is neck and neck with 8600gts. Only thing 1950pro is better than 8600gts is older games in higher resolution above 1600x1200 situations with AA applied. In recent games though these cards are not powerful enough to run the highest settings except 1024x768.

Tom's hardware is a JOKE. They use 6 month old drivers when 8600 drivers were immature. With recent tests they get similar results.

1 thing 8600 series have is better image quality. Dx10 option. Better HDCP support. You can get 8600gts for $135 shipped after rebate. Comparable to 1950pro prices.

 

[voodoo7817]

I just got a 1900gt at Newegg for $100.83 shipped. It is rev2, which means it clocks in at 512mhz instead of 575mhz, but it is still faster than anything else in the $75-$120 range, (7600GT, 7800GTX, 8600GT, 2600XT, etc.) using the admittedly old VGA charts. A 8600GTS or 1950Pro may be a little bit faster, but IMO they aren't worth the $20-$40 (or more) increase, especially considering rebates are involved. I plan on putting that money into my next video card in a year or so.

 

[Griswold]

Originally posted by: Azn
Don't listen to Arkaign. It seems he is biased or never tried a 8600gts and 1950pro. I have used both cards they're about equal in performance. 1950gt is not better than 8600gts. 1950pro is neck and neck with 8600gts. Only thing 1950pro is better than 8600gts is older games in higher resolution above 1600x1200 situations with AA applied. In recent games though these cards are not powerful enough to run the highest settings except 1024x768.

Now that is funny. So, when the GPU is not the limiting factor, the two cards are neck to neck - what a surprise! :roll:

In other words, your interpretation of reality is flawed, also because your assumption that the 1950pro cant handle more than 1024x768 is simply wrong. Of course you wont see 120fps at 16x12.

 

[AzN]

Now that is funny. So, when the GPU is not the limiting factor, the two cards are neck to neck - what a surprise! :roll:

What are you talking about? 1950pro does well in higher resolutions because it has more rops and memory bandwidth especially when you add AA for older games but in recent games 8600gts does well because it has more texturing units better PS. Trends change as games are more focused in different things. They are equal footing and in same line of performance depending on the situation. Just because Radeon 1950pro has 20% more memory bandwidth doesn't necessarily mean it's going to beat 8600gts in all games because it doesn't. With old games in mind when shader portions were less heavy, radeon does win but in recent heavily shader intensive games like Stalker, oblivion... 8600gts wins. They are basically 10% away from each other. 1 beating out each other. I call that equal footing.

http://www.digit-life.com/arti...video/g84-3-page4.html

http://www.firingsquad.com/har...orce_8600_gts_roundup/

In other words, your interpretation of reality is flawed, also because your assumption that the 1950pro cant handle more than 1024x768 is simply wrong. Of course you wont see 120fps at 16x12.

Obviously you don't understand the cards good points and bad points. No card is 100% perfect.

For instance 8600gts has 30% more texturing capabilities than 1950pro so adding AF on games take less of hit compared to 1950pro. While 1950 pro does better when AA is applied because it has more ROPS and 20% memory bandwidth. When heavy shader intensive situations arise 8600gts wins because it has more PS capabilities.

Have you seen 1950pro on recently released games or even ran a 8600gts for that matter on games like bioshock or Medal of Honor: Airborne? I'm talking about highest in game settings at smooth frame rates. These cards won't let you play 1600x1200 with those type of games. :roll: Maybe 2-3 year old games like BF2, Farcry or Half Life.