Best video cards <$50, not leading edge still good? ** SUMMARY ADDED 01/29 **

[jdixon]

What are the best price-for-performance AGP and PCI video cards that ATers can pick up at retail, online, or even used (e.g., at fs/ft, fleabay, yowow) for less than $50 these days?

So many ATers have jumped on these low-end PC hot deals, but we often order with only integrated graphics (I've got <$200 Compaq SR1000 & Dhell 2400). I want a nice step-up in video, but not spend more than $50; after all the whole point of "bottom-feeding" is to keep costs low-low-low. I'm sure many ATers would appreciate your viewpoint.

Please specify manuf. & model, chipset, whether PCI, 4X AGP, or 8X AGP. Tell us how the card performed for you and why you feel the card is a "hidden gem".

Edited to add summary info as of 01/28/05:

If I am willing to spend 2x my limit:

1. ATI Radeon 9500 or 9700 Pro (maybe $95-110 range)
2. GeForce4 Ti 4600 (maybe $75-85 range)

If I want to stay with my limit:

3. GeForce4 Ti 4200 (maybe $45-60 range)

If I want dirt cheap upgrade from integrated graphics and so-so price/perf:

4. ATI Radeon 7500 or GeForce4 MX 440 (maybe $20-30)

I never did get a clear answer for 128MB vs. 64MB. Still curious about when the extra $$$ for the extra RAM was worthwhile.

 

[mwmorph]

geforce ti4600. they can play hl2 on dx7 mode still. also, it ouperforms sime fx cards too like 5700le and 5200.

edit: it's 4xagp

 

[arcas]

You could probably find a Radeon 8500 in that price range these days. It's not a bad card. 4x agp IIRC.

If you primarily do 2D work (coding, etc), it's hard to beat a Matrox G400. 3D is pretty week (comparable to the old nVidia TNT2 Ultra) but 2D quality is top notch. Both of my development machines have Matrox cards.

 

[mwmorph]

read tom's hardwae guide vga chart 1 http://graphics.tomshardware.c...ic/20020418/index.html
the ti4600 consistently outperforms Radeon8500 BBA. the ti4600 is the consistent leader.

 

[jdixon]

Seeing the gpu & ddr ram rates raises a question: do those rates translate directly to better performance?
We know this is not true for cpu's because of architectural differences, but maybe the gpu world is simpler. I've seen measures in polygons per sec, etc. but I'm not sure that gpu & ram hz directly determine perf.

 

[jdixon]

TTT. All video card opinions appreciated.

 

[mwmorph]

Originally posted by: jdixon
Seeing the gpu & ddr ram rates raises a question: do those rates translate directly to better performance?
We know this is not true for cpu's because of architectural differences, but maybe the gpu world is simpler. I've seen measures in polygons per sec, etc. but I'm not sure that gpu & ram hz directly determine perf.

not anymore. aboth companies now use "cheat" optimizations to decrease image quality oh so slightly but increase speed that extra few percent. i mean look at the fx59xx series. faster than the 98xx series but never very popular because image quality was crappy bordering on unplayable in some games.
example.
geforce6600gt
500mhz core
1000mhz memory
8pixel pipes
3vertex shaders

Geforce 6800gt
350mhz core
1000mhz memory
16 pixel pipes
6 vertex shaders

the 6800gt destroys the 6600gt by wide margins of 10-20+ fps in every bench!

 

[The Green Bean]

Originally posted by: jdixon
What are the best price-for-performance AGP and PCI video cards that ATers can pick up at retail, online, or even used (e.g., at fs/ft, fleabay, yowow) for less than $50 these days?

So many ATers have jumped on these low-end PC hot deals, but we often order with only integrated graphics (I've got <$200 Compaq SR1000 & Dhell 2400). I want a nice step-up in video, but not spend more than $50; after all the whole point of "bottom-feeding" is to keep costs low-low-low. I'm sure many ATers would appreciate your viewpoint.

Please specify manuf. & model, chipset, whether PCI, 4X AGP, or 8X AGP. Tell us how the card performed for you and why you feel the card is a "hidden gem".

Geforce 4 Ti...Or a cheap 9700 if you can find one for the price...It performs almost close to a 6600GT...

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: hatim

Originally posted by: jdixon
What are the best price-for-performance AGP and PCI video cards that ATers can pick up at retail, online, or even used (e.g., at fs/ft, fleabay, yowow) for less than $50 these days?

So many ATers have jumped on these low-end PC hot deals, but we often order with only integrated graphics (I've got <$200 Compaq SR1000 & Dhell 2400). I want a nice step-up in video, but not spend more than $50; after all the whole point of "bottom-feeding" is to keep costs low-low-low. I'm sure many ATers would appreciate your viewpoint.

Please specify manuf. & model, chipset, whether PCI, 4X AGP, or 8X AGP. Tell us how the card performed for you and why you feel the card is a "hidden gem".

Geforce 4 Ti...Or a cheap 9700 if you can find one for the price...It performs almost close to a 6600GT...

Tough to find either for $50, though, even used.

A Geforce3Ti or RADEON 8500 is more likely to exist in that price range. There's also the GF4MX (or, say, a RADEON 7000/7500), which is pretty slow (and only DX7) -- but still a hell of a lot faster than integrated graphics of any sort. They're only ~$20-30 used, if even that.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: Matthias99

Originally posted by: hatim

Originally posted by: jdixon
What are the best price-for-performance AGP and PCI video cards that ATers can pick up at retail, online, or even used (e.g., at fs/ft, fleabay, yowow) for less than $50 these days?

So many ATers have jumped on these low-end PC hot deals, but we often order with only integrated graphics (I've got <$200 Compaq SR1000 & Dhell 2400). I want a nice step-up in video, but not spend more than $50; after all the whole point of "bottom-feeding" is to keep costs low-low-low. I'm sure many ATers would appreciate your viewpoint.

Please specify manuf. & model, chipset, whether PCI, 4X AGP, or 8X AGP. Tell us how the card performed for you and why you feel the card is a "hidden gem".

Geforce 4 Ti...Or a cheap 9700 if you can find one for the price...It performs almost close to a 6600GT...

Tough to find either for $50, though, even used.

A Geforce3Ti or RADEON 8500 is more likely to exist in that price range. There's also the GF4MX (or, say, a RADEON 7000/7500), which is pretty slow (and only DX7) -- but still a hell of a lot faster than integrated graphics of any sort. They're only ~$20-30 used, if even that.

For that, you might as well look at the Radeon 9200SE line of cards. Newegg has them for ~$40-50.

 

[fbrdphreak]

I'm interested in this as well. How much worse is the 9200's for DX8/DX9 performance? My little sister occasinoally wants to do little games on the parents old desktop (1GHz Duron, 768MB SDRAM) and the GF2MX isn't cutting it. I would like DX9 compatibility (true compatibility, i.e. not GF4 and probably not GF-FX) at a minimum cost. Is a 9600 non-Pro overkill? Regular 9500? 9550? And how HORRIBLE is the 9200 for basic gaming @ low-res (1024x768 or even 800x600). Thanks in advance

 

[Malak]

9200 is about as low as you get for dx9 cards. In the gaming world, you gotta spend money to have fun, and $50 is hardly enough to get that. Double that and you have a better chance. Fact is, if you get a 9200 now, it's going to be just as crappy as that geforce2 mx in 6 months.

 

[ZobarStyl]

DX9 should by no means factor in to any low-end buying decision right now. The 9200 (SE or regular) won't be even be capable of worthwhile performance in any game that uses DX9, so the point is moot. A GF3/8500/GF4 would be your best bet: they are faster and DX9 won't really matter. Honestly, I never will understand spending extra cash on getting a feature that has no use on something so slow...it's like a sale that says "Free Set of Off-Roading Tires with Your Geo Metro Purchase." And like Malak said, if you want to game (especially with DX9), you need to be prepared to throw down the cash.

 

[fbrdphreak]

So, let me give you a hypothetical.
Rig:
Biostar Socket A Board
Duron 1GHz (Soon to be Athlon T-Bird 1.2Ghz)
768MB PC133 SDRAM
40GB 7200RPM

Game "Requirements":
PC Processor Type Intel® Pentium® III processor, AMD Athlon? processor
PC Processor Speed 450MHz
PC Operating System Windows 98, Windows Millennium Edition (Windows Me), Windows 2000, Windows XP
PC System Memory 128MB RAM
PC Hard Drive Space 620MB
PC Video 16MB 3D DirectX 9.0b-compatible video card
PC Sound Card DirectX 9.0b-compatible 16-bit sound card
PC Drive Type and Speed CD-ROM 4x
PC Additional Requirements DirectX 9.0b

What is the CHEAPEST video card that would play this at 800x600 or even 1024x768? These are the caliber of games my sister will play from time to time. Thanks in advance

Edit In addition to above, would this card suffice? Yes, I do realize the RAM is overkill.
- Nvidia GeForce3 Ti200 128MB AGP with S-Video (Gainward)

 

[mwmorph]

it'll work but not all features will be enable-able.(not sure if thats a word)

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: fbrdphreak
I'm interested in this as well. How much worse is the 9200's for DX8/DX9 performance? My little sister occasinoally wants to do little games on the parents old desktop (1GHz Duron, 768MB SDRAM) and the GF2MX isn't cutting it. I would like DX9 compatibility (true compatibility, i.e. not GF4 and probably not GF-FX) at a minimum cost. Is a 9600 non-Pro overkill? Regular 9500? 9550? And how HORRIBLE is the 9200 for basic gaming @ low-res (1024x768 or even 800x600). Thanks in advance

The 9200 line of cards are only DX 8.1 compliant. They are basically re-worked Radeon 8500s. Newegg has them for ~$40

You're not going to get a DX9-compliant card that can actually *perform* DX9 tasks at an acceptable rate for that kind of price. Your best bet is the 9600 line of cards. You can get a lower-end 9600SE for ~$75, but they are much slower than the Pro and XT versions.

 

[RussianSensation]

Originally posted by: malak
9200 is about as low as you get for dx9 cards. In the gaming world, you gotta spend money to have fun, and $50 is hardly enough to get that. Double that and you have a better chance. Fact is, if you get a 9200 now, it's going to be just as crappy as that geforce2 mx in 6 months.

9200 ISN'T a DX9 card.

4200 is the best card in the $50 price range.

 

[fbrdphreak]

My bad fellas, I'm not an ATI guy and didn't realize that the 9200's weren't even DX9 compatible. I was able to play Halo semi decently with my ol' Ti4200, so I think I'll look for one of those for that system.
But that Ti300 is dirt cheap, will that run basic games @ 800x600 reasonably well? Thx in advance

 

[Malak]

Originally posted by: RussianSensation

Originally posted by: malak
9200 is about as low as you get for dx9 cards. In the gaming world, you gotta spend money to have fun, and $50 is hardly enough to get that. Double that and you have a better chance. Fact is, if you get a 9200 now, it's going to be just as crappy as that geforce2 mx in 6 months.

9200 ISN'T a DX9 card.

4200 is the best card in the $50 price range.

Oops, I thought the 9000 was the only one in the 9xxx series that was dx8. Kinda odd, considering they came out AFTER directx 9...

 

[jdixon]

Thx for great feedback. Let me ask some specifics:

1. Is a GeForce4 MX 440 any good for 3D?
2. Ti 4200 appears to be about $20-25 more than MX 440 on ebay; worth the add'l $?
3. Under what conditions is 128MB an absolute must?
4. How much more should I be willing to pay for 128MB over 64MB?

 

[bamacre]

The Dell 2400 has no agp, so a radeon 9200 or 9250 would be the best bet here.

 

[Patrick Wolf]

I'm going to be selling my GeForce Ti 4600 128MB w/ Thermaltake A1449 G4-VGA CoolMOD Highest Performance Cooler on ebay within the next 5 days. Hopefully people will bid like crazy on it because of that new fan.

I'm also going to be selling a ti4200 64MB, which I was not impressed with for gaming.

 

[Mattd46612]

i have a 9200se, i only get 23fps on the hlf2 video stress test..... guess its time to upgrade...

 

[gwag]

1. sure
2. Yes a 4200Ti OWNS Any 4MX Period. its worth it.
3. none
4. had 4200ti's in both config couln't tell a dif.

 

[Malak]

Originally posted by: jdixon
Thx for great feedback. Let me ask some specifics:

1. Is a GeForce4 MX 440 any good for 3D?
2. Ti 4200 appears to be about $20-25 more than MX 440 on ebay; worth the add'l $?
3. Under what conditions is 128MB an absolute must?
4. How much more should I be willing to pay for 128MB over 64MB?

1. Depends
2. Considering the MX is really a geforce2 with a fancy name, YES
3. Playing any new games
4. Whatever it takes