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

[jdixon]

gwag & malak: okay, so mx 440 doesn't appear to be good choice, but why total opposite opinions on #3, the 128 vs. 64 qn, and #4, premium for the extra 64?

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: Matthias99
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.

Uhh, no. Have you ever tried to play the original UT on a 7500? I have. Not pretty. It's comparable or slower to a Voodoo3. An ancient GF2 MX (128-bit SDR) AGP 2x card outperforms it. Heavily - almost 2x faster.

I'd look for a deal on an ATI R9550/9600 Pro, and OC it a bit, personally, if you were looking at the ~$50 range. That, or a used GF4 Ti4600, but good luck finding one of those these days.

I have a R9200 in this box now ($40, last year), and it plays UT fine, and UT2K4 "almost" fine. But I wouldn't recommend it to anyone else personally, unless they could pick it up for under $30 or so. The dual-head/TV-out at 1024x768 is readable on my TV at that res using default fonts, even, using the composite output! That's pretty damn amazingly good as far as TV-out quality goes. It's just not so great at 3D.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: malak
9200 is about as low as you get for dx9 cards.

Err, the R9200 is not a DX9 card. It's a DX8 or 8.1-level card, in hardware.

A R9550/9600/9600 Pro/XT is the bare minimum that you would want for DX9 "shader-intensive" games.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: 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...

Well, at one point, ATI announced that the first digit of their card's model number would be used to represent their level of DX9 compliance (in hardware - not just "compatible"). They later changed their stance on that, and the 9100 was a cut-down/re-named 8500, the 9000 was cut down further still (only a single vertex-shader, I think), and the 9200 was the same as the 9000, but with an AGP 8x interface. Not sure what the 9250 is these days. A GF FX5200 (non-crippled) card has a similar memory bandwidth and fill-rate to a 9200, but has twice the vertex power, and does have minimal DX9 support. If you plan on playing FarCry or Doom3, I would actually suggest a GF FX 5200 (Ultra), with at least 128MB on it, as opposed to a 9200.

But a 9600 Pro/XT would wipe the floor with both of them for FC or HL2.

 

[fbrdphreak]

In the sub-$50 price range, I'm seeing that the 8500/9100 (same card from what I hear) is about the best. GF3 Ti500 seems to be the closesnt nVidia card, but those are harder to find. I personally am probably going to find an 8500/9100 or maybe a 9250 for the sub-$50 card, but I'm really looking for $30 and less anyway 😉
If anyone's got some old hardware, check out my WTB & FS/FT threads; maybe we can work something out!

 

[Matthias99]

quote:
Originally posted by: Matthias99
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.

Uhh, no. Have you ever tried to play the original UT on a 7500? I have. Not pretty. It's comparable or slower to a Voodoo3. An ancient GF2 MX (128-bit SDR) AGP 2x card outperforms it. Heavily - almost 2x faster.

No, I have never used a RADEON 7000/7500 (I actually had a Voodoo3 at that point, most likely!) I thought it was comparable to a GF2MX, which is only slightly slower than GF4MX, no?

benches of lots of older cards
(note: the R7000 is a "VE", whatever that means. They also list a RADEON 7200 that lands somewhere between the 7000(VE) and 7500)

Serious Sam (1024x768):
RADEON 7500: 72.5
RADEON 7000: 28.0 (ouch!)
GF4MX 440: 71.8
GF2MX 400: 37.1

RtCW (1024x768):
R7500: 68.9
R7000: 25.2
GF4MX: 66.9
GF2MX: 29.7

UT2K3 (800x600):
R7500: 56.8
R7000: 25.8
GF4MX: 53.8
GF2MX: 24.2

Unreal 2 (800x600):
R7500: 41.5
R7000: 20.0
GF4MX: 37.1
GF2MX: 20.4

Okay, so the R7000 is a real dog (at least the "VE" model; I don't know if a 'normal' R7000 is faster). And I didn't realize how much faster the GF4MX is than the GF2MX. But the 7500 is definitely comparable to a GF4MX, which, while slow, is not unusable (I mean, I was playing BF1942 for a while -- albeit at 800x600 -- on a GF2MX!) Considering the 7500 is getting 50-60FPS in Unreal Tournament 2003, I would think it would be just fine for the original UT (unless maybe there were driver issues, or you had a cut-down variant of the card). I hereby drop my recommendation of the RADEON 7000, but stand by the R7500 and GF4MX unless presented with contrary evidence. 😛 However, with any of these cards, make sure it is not a cut-down "LE" or "SE" model. They perform much worse than the regular ones, and the price difference on hardware this old is minimal.

 

[fbrdphreak]

Okay guys, so I have a choice coming up here. Help me pick out a bottom-end AGP card:

Radeon 9100 64MB: ~$40
Radeon 9250 (brand new) 128MB: $30
FX5200 slightly used 128MB OEM: $40

Combined with a 1GHz Duron (hopefully upgraded to 1.2GHZ TBird soon), 768MB SDRAM, & 40GB 7200RPM. Playing only little kiddies games for the next few years, but they do require DX9 compliant hardware & ol' GF2MX isn't cutting it. Thanks in advance

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: fbrdphreak
Okay guys, so I have a choice coming up here. Help me pick out a bottom-end AGP card:

Radeon 9100 64MB: ~$40
Radeon 9250 (brand new) 128MB: $30
FX5200 slightly used 128MB OEM: $40

Combined with a 1GHz Duron (hopefully upgraded to 1.2GHZ TBird soon), 768MB SDRAM, & 40GB 7200RPM. Playing only little kiddies games for the next few years, but they do require DX9 compliant hardware & ol' GF2MX isn't cutting it. Thanks in advance

The R9100 is the fastest of these three cards. However, the only one that "really" does DX9 is the FX5200 (but it's dog-slow at it).

However, your games almost certainly just require DX9 'compatible' hardware, which means you can install DX9 on the system. The reason your GF2MX doesn't work is probably that the games require hardware transform and lighting (HWT&L), which the GF2 doesn't have.

 

[asm0deus]

I got a 9200 128MB, mine is VIVO though and it cost me like $70 like a year ago. Its been a great card, it's in my a64 right now (it will be reitred to my htpc). Of course I want to upgrade but I got some serious debt holding me back. I play NFSU2 on it and its very fast, I also play call of duty, but if I don't overclock the 9200 it has texture filling issues, once i OC it to 280MHz core and 225MHz RAM it plays it perfectly. I've also played far cry and rome total war on this card (with the details and resolution down of course) so I consider it a worthy 3D contender.

 

[Malak]

Originally posted by: fbrdphreak
Okay guys, so I have a choice coming up here. Help me pick out a bottom-end AGP card:

Radeon 9100 64MB: ~$40
Radeon 9250 (brand new) 128MB: $30
FX5200 slightly used 128MB OEM: $40

Combined with a 1GHz Duron (hopefully upgraded to 1.2GHZ TBird soon), 768MB SDRAM, & 40GB 7200RPM. Playing only little kiddies games for the next few years, but they do require DX9 compliant hardware & ol' GF2MX isn't cutting it. Thanks in advance

Don't bother with the fx5200, the entire fx line is pants. Personally I'd get the 9250 for that cheap.

You know, I played UT on onboard, so anything should work with that.

 

[fbrdphreak]

The 9250 is also interesting to me 'cuz it has passive cooling. What I don't like is that it has a 64-bit memory bus, whereas the 9100 has a 128-bit. I'm gonna see if I can talk to seller of the 9100 down a little and go from there 🙂
I've definitely decided NO on the 5200, so I'll see what I can do about that 9100 😉
Thanks for the input guys

 

[BarnyardMonkey]

For around the $30 range or so,you can't go wrong with the GF3.
either Regular or the TI500.

I use it in one of my main Rigs still and can play any game out right now.
It will even run Everquest II at 1024x768.Ofcourse not at high quality,but pretty darn good considering what it is.

Also plays HL2 very well.

It runs on an XP 2000+ and 512Mb DDR.(Regular GF3)



Shawn.

 

[jdixon]

Informative posts, thx, and especially Matthias99's benchmarks. Do you have results that show Ti 4200 vs. MX 440?

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: jdixon
Informative posts, thx, and especially Matthias99's benchmarks. Do you have results that show Ti 4200 vs. MX 440?

Both those cards are in the digit-life article I linked in my above post (along with MANY others). The tests are a little dated, but they have just about every video card made from 1999-2003.

 

[Malak]

Originally posted by: jdixon
Informative posts, thx, and especially Matthias99's benchmarks. Do you have results that show Ti 4200 vs. MX 440?

The ti is far superior to the MX, the MX is just a geforce 2, not even as good as geforce3. So the geforce4 will be twice what it is.

 

[jdixon]

Originally posted by: malak
The ti is far superior to the MX, the MX is just a geforce 2, not even as good as geforce3. So the geforce4 will be twice what it is.

Yeah, I remember you said this earlier. Several other posters have also highly praised the ti. I was really just curious about an actual scores comparison.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: Matthias99
However, your games almost certainly just require DX9 'compatible' hardware, which means you can install DX9 on the system. The reason your GF2MX doesn't work is probably that the games require hardware transform and lighting (HWT&L), which the GF2 doesn't have.

Agree with the first item, but a minor clarification on the second. The GF2MX has hardware T&L - all "GeForce" series cards do, AFAIK. Remember, GF2MX was a DX7 card, hardware T&L was introduced as a new feature in DX6.1. It's just that the poor old GF2MX was severely bandwidth-limited, and they chopped the number of rendering pipelines in half (2 for GF2MX, original GF and GF2 had 4, IIRC). But to make up for that, the GF2MX pipelines each have dual texture units (2x2 arch). I think that the GF4MX is similarly limited, although not as bandwidth-limited. Btw, the Radeon 7200 is what the original Radeon was re-named to, and the Radeon 7000 is what the Radeon VE became - a crippled card, lacking T&L, and possibly a few other things like Hyper-Z, etc.

 

[apoppin]

Radeon 8500/GeForce Ti4200 were best bang for buck in their day and can probably still be got for ~$50 (i sold my used 8500-128MB for $45 this Summer on FS/T).

Both are 4xAGP and use the lower AGP voltage (1.5v). They'll still play ANY game at 6x4 (hi details) or even mid-8x6 with full DX8.1 functionality . . . . you gotta pay about double that to get a faster DX9 card. 😉

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry

Originally posted by: Matthias99
However, your games almost certainly just require DX9 'compatible' hardware, which means you can install DX9 on the system. The reason your GF2MX doesn't work is probably that the games require hardware transform and lighting (HWT&L), which the GF2 doesn't have.

Agree with the first item, but a minor clarification on the second. The GF2MX has hardware T&L - all "GeForce" series cards do, AFAIK. Remember, GF2MX was a DX7 card, hardware T&L was introduced as a new feature in DX6.1. It's just that the poor old GF2MX was severely bandwidth-limited, and they chopped the number of rendering pipelines in half (2 for GF2MX, original GF and GF2 had 4, IIRC). But to make up for that, the GF2MX pipelines each have dual texture units (2x2 arch). I think that the GF4MX is similarly limited, although not as bandwidth-limited. Btw, the Radeon 7200 is what the original Radeon was re-named to, and the Radeon 7000 is what the Radeon VE became - a crippled card, lacking T&L, and possibly a few other things like Hyper-Z, etc.

You're right. For some reason I was stuck on the NVIDIA TNT 2, which doesn't have HWT&L and caused *lots* of problems for people trying to play games like Battlefield 1942 (which require HWT&L).

I don't know of any programs that wouldn't even *run* on a GF2 (except for benchmarks, etc. that explicitly used higher shader levels). I mean, you *could* write games that absolutely require DX8.1/9 shaders, but nobody has done this yet (that I am aware of).

 

[jdixon]

Summary results:

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.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: jdixon
Summary results:

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)

forget the GF4 in favor of the 9700p

If I want to stay with my limit:

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

or Radeon 8500

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)

ok - for games thru '02

I never did get a clear answer for 128MB vs. 64MB. Still curious about when the extra $$$ for the extra RAM was worthwhile.[/quote]there is no clear answer For older cards - Radeon 8500/ti4200 - there is very little performance difference . . . . if the price is the same - (generally) just pick the one with more memory. 😉

 

[VirtualLarry]

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

For gaming purposes, on lower-end cards, all that extra memory isn't really all that useful, although for a PCI card it can allow loading up all of the level's textures rather than swapping them over the AGP bus, so extra RAM on a PCI card can make up for not being an AGP card in some cases.

The only real reason that I can see for getting a lower-end card with a lot of RAM onboard, is because MS's early projections for video-card requirements for Longhorn's new "Aero" UI, are a DX9-class card, with a minimum of 128MB of video memory - just for the darn OS UI. So if you want maximum UI eyecandy in Longhorn, apparently, you will need plenty of RAM on your card.

Realistically, though, I think that they will scale that down a little, or make it a bit more adaptive. I only have a 64MB R9200, so I guess I'll be "screwed" when Longhorn comes out, because I'll have to revert back to the software-rendered W2K-like interface. (Which may not be a bad thing at all - I happen to prefer that interface myself over XP's.)

Oh, and that other thread in Video about "Longhorn interface for XP" - it's not entirely true. That's a tech. preview of the new WinForm 2.0/Avalon infrastructure that MS back-ported to XP - it is not the Longhorn UI, as I understand it, or at least not the one using the new hardware-accelerated compositing/display engine.

 

[jdixon]

radeon 8500 appears more in the ti 4600 price range (ebay).

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: jdixon
radeon 8500 appears more in the ti 4600 price range (ebay).

i was just thinking i sold my 8500-128MB for $45 and most of the others were ~$50 on the FS/T forum this last Summer. . . . anyway, the ti4200 holds a very slight performance lead over the r8500 . . . . if it is cheaper, go for it.

 

[Grayson73]

It's been over a month now. Any updates on what video card to get for $50, or is the best still GeForce4 TI 4200 128mb or Radeon 8500?