Best video card for Athlon 900?

[Cpt. Duke]

I have an Athlon 900 paired with my old Voodoo3 2000. Right now the only game I play is CS so my performance isn't that bad.
I want to start playing some newer games though so the V3 has got to go.

I'm was thinking about the GTS-V that's about $50 at newegg. Does anyone know what's with the "V" ? Is it a stripped down card like a Radeon LE?

Would I be able to get more performance from a GeForce2 Pro or Ultra? Or is a GTS my best bet?


Thanks

 

[Killrose]

For $49 that Visiontek is hard to beat. People report that even though it only has 7ns ram that it still overclocks like a mother. The Ati 7500 for $96 is not too shabby either. With a 900 Athlon, I would'nt bother with a GF3 Ti200 and up, or an 8500 Radeon.

I think with a Pro/Ultra you would notice big improvement, though your CPU is going to be the bottle-neck. Go with the $49 GTS-V if that's your price range.

 

[hudster]

I've got an Athlon 900, and my video card is a Radeon (original) 32MB DDR which I bought last April. I've been pleased with it to date. It's been able to run most of the latest games just fine at moderate graphics settings. Although last night, I downloaded the Medal of Honor: Allied Assault demo, and it played fine with the texture detail set to medium @ 800x600x32-bit, but when I tried to bump the texture detail to high, it bogged the game down quite a bit.

But anyway, if you're looking to go the budget route (since you mentioned the $50 GF2 GTS-V deal), there's a similarly priced deal for my Radeon, which this thread over in the Hot Deals forum talks about. They've got it similarly priced (to that GTS-V deal), and it's probably similar performance level too (although the Radeon's got superior DVD harware decoding if you're into DVD movies on your PC)

Or, if you want to splurge a little , Newegg's got some decent Gainward cards, including a GeForce 4 for $117 (yes, it's a lower-end GF4 card, but still), and a GEFORCE2 Ti450 64MB DDR for $87.

I think your Athlon 900 would fully benefit from whatever video upgrade you decide on.


-hudster

 

[ScrapSilicon]

my vote ---> $49 GTS-V

 

[eplebnista]

BTW, the GTS-V now comes with 5.5ns Infineon DDR memory. I just ordered one last week from Newegg and was studying the card and noticed the difference. The GTS-V(5632) is also now mentioned on Visiontek's website. The card is just clocked a little slower in the bios than a regular GTS and does not require a registry hack to enable any features on the card, like the Radeon LE does. I am using the 23.12 drivers and coolbits(slightly OC to 185/300 at the moment-planning on trying for more later on) on an Abit BE6 with no problems.

hth,
eplebnista

 

[Killrose]

Wow, 5.5ns ram, that makes a gerat deal even better. You should be able to aproach Pro speeds with that.

 

[spanky]

i've got a v3 2000 too... i like it problem i have with radeon's are that smoke or fog absolutely kills my fps. i dunno how the gts-v is with smoke/fog tho...

 

[nRollo]

"With a 900 Athlon, I would'nt bother with a GF3 Ti200 and up, or an 8500 Radeon."

Why is that? You don't think a GF3 Ti200 or R8500 would be faster on this system? Hopefully you'll post links to proof of this strange assumption.

BTW last fall I had an Athlon 1GHz/Herc GF2 Pro. When I upgraded to a GF3 , I noticed a big difference. So I can say with reasonable certainty that a Ti200 is DEFINITELY the way to go for this guy. Why would you buy a DX7 card these days, with Ti200s so cheap?

 

[Cpt. Duke]

Thanks for the responses guys. I think that the GTS is my best bet, especially because it's so cheap. I think I have a couple older cards that I'm gonna sell so in the end I'll upgrade for next to nothing...

Thanks guys

 

[Daovonnaex]

The GF2 GTS is a good buy, but if you really want good 2D as well, consider the original Radeon 32 DDR. The 3D performance is almost as good (and arguably looks better), but the 2D is better.

 

[Killrose]

<< Why is that? You don't think a GF3 Ti200 or R8500 would be faster on this system? Hopefully you'll post links to proof of this strange assumption >>



I have owned an 8500 before. In the same computer (not My current system). With the same settings Q3 Timedemo 1: Radeon 8500 139fps. Radeon 7500 118fps. WTF? I figured I would get at least 185fps with the 8500, maybe even 200fps. This was in an Epox E8KTA3, 512mb PC133 cas2 ram with a 1.4gig T-bird@ 10x145/1450MHz.

The problem is all reveiw sites are running the top of the line 1800+ or 2.0gig processors with either DDR or Rambus. They are not using an "old" KT133a based system with pc133 ram. If they were, we would all see how poorly the top of the line GPU's scale. I wish they would run reveiws like they used to, and that is with graphs showing performance with a "middle" of the road system as well as the "top" end system.

 

[nRollo]

"The problem is all reveiw sites are running the top of the line 1800+ or 2.0gig processors with either DDR or Rambus."

Here's a review from the site you're on using a GF3/Athlon 1GHz/KT133:

http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=1442&p=5
GF3 spanks GTS at Q3

http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=1442&p=6
GF3 spanks GTS at MDK2

http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=1442&p=8
GF3 spanks GTS at SS

http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=1442&p=9
GF3 spanks GTS at FSAA

http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=1442&p=10
GF3 faster than GTS at UT

http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=1442&p=11
GF3 spanks GTS at Aquanox

I think we can assume these results would be the same for the poster with a Ti200 as it's the same as a GF3, clocked 10% slower. His cpu is is 10% slower as well, which would make less of a difference.

I'm just tired of "informed" people telling everyone who doesn't have this year's cpu that the latest video cards "aren't for them". This guy has a 900MHz Athlon, which has plenty of power to take advantage of a GF3.
I can tell you from experience I saw a lot bigger jump going from GF2 Pro to GF3 on anAthlon 1Ghz than I did going from Athlon 1GHz to Athlon XP 1600+/256DDR.
If the original poster wants to buy a cheap vga, the GTS will be a big jump up from a V3.
A GF3 would be a bigger jump yet, and actually give him the chan ce to play new games like Aquanox, which the GTS won't. I'd rather spend $150 on a vga I could use a year or two than $50 on one that's obsolete when it get's to me.

<steps off soapbox>

 

[richleader]

I have a kt133 (not a) and a tbird 900, and I love my Geforce 3 over my old Geforce 2 GTS. I don't really get super high framerates out of it, but 32bit color is an option which it wasn't on the GTS. Well, it was, but knowing that the card would give me about 40% more speed was a good reason to stay in 16bit color.

Next month, a Geforce 3 ti200 will be even cheaper, I'd vote for that.

Remember, when you're cpu limited, anti-aliasing is free.

 

[nRollo]

Richleader:
How dare you join the elite club of new vga owners with an ancient cpu like that?! It is a waste of a good vga, a crime against nature...

LOL

 

[Killrose]

Rolo, if you read his post he was'nt asking about the GF3 at all. He's asking about a $50 video card not a $150 video card. There comes a time when you have to decide CPU OR Video card for an upgrade.

I also stated:

<< I think with a Pro/Ultra you would notice big improvement, though your CPU is going to be the bottle-neck. >>



GF3 spanks GTS? That's a No Brainer. Are you saying the 900 Athlon pushes the GF3 to it's max potential at let's say 1024x768 32bit everything to the max? If he can afford the more expensive card, great, that would be my vote as well.

I was just trying to inform him about the potential dissapointment of buying the top of line video card and expecting the same sort of performance as seen in the current reveiws. Also, was your 1gig Athlon a 266 FSB CPU? Because the 900 is not.

 

[nRollo]

"Are you saying the 900 Athlon pushes the GF3 to it's max potential at let's say 1024x768 32bit everything to the max?"
Nowhere in this thread did I say that.

"I was just trying to inform him about the potential dissapointment of buying the top of line video card"
I don't see how he'll be disappointed by having a better video card, I assume he knows his computer isn't as fast as an Athlon XP 2000+.

"was your 1gig Athlon a 266 FSB CPU?"
Nope, 1GHz 10X100.

Your system as always as good as it's weakest part. I just don't think that's a good reason to buy weak parts.

 

[Cpt. Duke]

Wo, I've never had a thread get so much attention...

I think that I'll be getting the GTS and use it until there's a game it won't be able to run very well. At that point I'll stick it into my second comp and upgrade my main system to a GF3 or better...

It's nice to hear that a GF3 would be worth it on a 900 Athlon though...

 

[ScrapSilicon]

<< Rolo, if you read his post he was'nt asking about the GF3 at all. He's asking about a $50 video card not a $150 video card. There comes a time when you have to decide CPU OR Video card for an upgrade.

I also stated:

<< I think with a Pro/Ultra you would notice big improvement, though your CPU is going to be the bottle-neck. >>



GF3 spanks GTS? That's a No Brainer. Are you saying the 900 Athlon pushes the GF3 to it's max potential at let's say 1024x768 32bit everything to the max? If he can afford the more expensive card, great, that would be my vote as well.

I was just trying to inform him about the potential dissapointment of buying the top of line video card and expecting the same sort of performance as seen in the current reveiws. Also, was your 1gig Athlon a 266 FSB CPU? Because the 900 is not. >>

all I know is (Ati Radeon 64DDR ViVo original latest WHQL drivers) my 800 SocketA Athlon hits 100% CPU usage running the VulpineGL demo unlike Q3A demo,SiSoft joke( j/k...lol ) or 3dMark2001

 

[limsandy]

My friend is also considering a new video card, running Athlon 800. Need more opinions. Thanks.