Edit: UPDATED QUESTION:I need help selecting a games vid for DVI.

[bupkus]

Lately I've been playing the UT2003 Demo and I've ordered the game. My G550
just doesn't do as well as my nephew's RADEON LE 32M DDR so I'm looking for
a card that can do text as well as games. I think DVI is also in my future.

I'm looking at the RADEON 8500 LE 64M DDR for the price, but
inspite of statements suggesting ATI is getting their drivers act together
I'm still considering Nvidia.

Price? I'd like it to be less than $100.
Also, just so this isn't too easy I also like to dual book with linux, probably Redhat.

I've tried to check Redhat's HCL but the page comes up "The page cannot be
displayed".

To summarize,
1) UT2003
2) <$100 (if possible)
3) RH linux drivers

Any help would be appreciated.
Thanks.

 

[Soulkeeper]

I'm in the same boat i'll prob be picking up a GF4 TI4200
but if you wanna keep it under 100 i recommend getting a GF3 ti200 or something
I also recommend staying away from the ATI cards if you want any hope of playing UT2003 in Linux
VIA's s3tc patent pretty much puts a stop to that (since the patent stops the open source community, who makes ati's drivers for linux, from playing ut2003)
nvidia has nice linux drivers and work the best with pretty much everything
have fun

 

[sep]

Get a G4 ti4200. You'll have to stretch you funds out a little more. Try selling this card for a couple of bucks to help get you the 4200. You can get a 64MB card for about $120 shipped, but I'd recommend a 128MB for UT2003. I got an Albatron ti4200p 128MB card for $153 and it rocks. You can get one for $141 now.

If you have to keep it less than $100, like you stated, then try getting a G3 ti200 with 128MB if not a 64MB.

Good Luck!
-JC

 

[Smilin]

Linux means nVidia, not ATI. Period. So that's an easy choice. As for <$100 I don't think you're going to be satisfied with the performance of ut2k3 on a sub $100 card. A GF4 4200 128mb is probably your best bet but it's going to ring in at about $140-160. If you can't swing that then DONT get the 64mb version of the 4200...just drop down to something in the GF3 class and save up your money for a future upgrade.

I couldn't get your rig specs to come up...the link goes somewhere wierd. Be sure you don't try ut2k3 on anything less than about 1.4ghz (amd) or about 1.8ghz (intel). Ut2k3 bottlenecks bad with a slower cpu.

 

[AnAndAustin]

What system is this going in to. It is well worth paying the extra for a 4200, the faster the CPU the better idea it is. GF3TI200 even when o/c'ed means you'll still be getting wore perf and GF4TI cards also enhance image quality, AA, dual display, TVout/VIVO and also show great gains from the faster CPUs. Rad8500 cards do perf as well as a GF3 and also has better image quality, dual display, TVout and DVD playback, but as said Linux could be a prob.

So unless you have a slow-mid CPU I'd def fork out that little extra for a 4200-64MB, 128MB is better in the long term but if UT2003 is your priority then the 64MB with it's faster RAM actually tends to fair better. Other than avoiding EVGA, AOpen and std Gainward cards brand shouldn't make any diff for 4200.

 

[Packy]

I've been nothing but happy with my Abit Siluro 4200, and the thing o/c's like nobody's business! Easily does 310/615 w/ the stock cooling, with no image tearing. I paid over $160 when I got it, but it has dropped in price quite quickly. You can get the model I have for $141 shipped at newegg.

Jeeze, I just looked at the other 4200's at newegg... prices have been dropping! You can get a basic Chaintech card for $123 shipped, and they have the Leadtek w/ tv-out for $132 shipped (wimpy cooling, though).

Anyway, I agree w/ everyone else... GF4 4200 is the closest you can get considering your requirements. Have fun picking

 

[bupkus]

I forgot to add:

I'm also planning on getting a 17" LCD monitor. I'd like to run it in digital but I don't know what that will mean using it's native 1280x1024 resolution with the Ti4200?

 

[Packy]

Responding to above: Shouldn't be a problem at all, just triple-check that the model you get does indeed have DVI. 1280x1024 isn't super-high-res, so this resolution won't present a problem to a GF4. Was there anything specific you were worried about?

 

[AnAndAustin]

Well with your budget and reqs the 4200 is the clear winner, and given the price diff a 4600 isn't really worth it anyway. So it may be you'll need to lower the details in some games to run in 1280x1024 or else give up the native res of the LCD screen. You haven't mentioned what CPU you have or any other upgrade plans, even a 4200 at stock gives a nice boost with every extra mhz of CPU power right up to the top end CPUs, so again it's a fine choice even before it o/c's past 4400 perf levels as is common.

For an idea how this will run check these out bearing in mind they are at stock speeds, where possible the 4400 provides a good guide to how a 4200 will perf when o/c'ed.

AnAndTech CPU scaling with loads of games

AnAndTech CPU Scaling 2 focusing on UT2003

GotApex 4200 review (inc 4400 4600 3TI200 3TI500 2TI R7500 R8500 4MX440)

Tech-Report Rad9000PRO review (but includes a lot of other cards)

AnAndTech 4200 roundup (good link for deciding whether to pay the extra for 128MB)

Summary of info from AnAndTech CPU Scaling Link 1:

What an XP2100+ can deliver at 1280x1024x32 on a 4200 at stock with full details (then in brackets the FPS a given CPU can achieve at 1024x768x32):
UT2003: XP2100+ 31FPS (XP2100+ manages 45FPS while XP1800+ is at 42FPS)
S.Sam2: XP2100+ 57FPS (Athlon 1ghz manages over 80FPS)
JK2-JO: XP2100+ 104FPS (Athlon 1ghz manages over 80FPS)
Comm4: XP2100+ 40FPS (AthlonXP1800+ manages 38FPS)
Quake3: XP2100+ 172FPS (Athlon 1ghz manages over 170FPS)
RTCW: XP2100+ 133FPS (Athlon 1ghz manages 120FPS)

Do note that it is an old build of the UT2003 engine, from what I've seen a 4200 is enough to run UT2003 quite happily, but 1280x1024 is pushing it ... is an LCD with a native mode of 1024x768 an option? Anyway at defaults of 250/444 this is what to expect from a 4200, when o/c'ed a 4200 should hit at least 4400 speed (275/550) which should add at least 10% to these figures. At default in 1280x1024x32 with full details we see UT2003 and Commanche4 are unplayable while all the other games are certainly playable and in 3 cases they should run with 2xAA and 8xAF enabled (eff 16tap) and still be very playable in 1280x1024x32 ... of course with an XP2100+.

CPU Scaling Link 2 focuses on 800x600 so isn't very relevant to your LCD quest.

EDIT: Sorry didn't realise the Tech-Report Rad9000PRO review missed out 1280x1024x32, so here's AnAnd's take on it, pretty much the same but includes 1280x1024x32 and esp note that a 4200 plays the newer build of UT2003 very well in that res!

AnAndTech Rad9000PRO review (inc GF4TI, Rad8500/LE, Parhelia, GF4MX440/460 & Rad7500)

 

[bupkus]

AnAndAugust,
So you're saying at the end of your post that at "Unreal Tournament 2003 (DM-Antalus)
1280x1024x32 High Detail Settings" the frame rate at 43.9 for the NVIDIA GeForce4 4200 (128MB) is sufficient?
I don't know where the cut-off fps is for these fast action games.
It sounds like I can use the resident resolution for the 17" LCD although I don't know if it's necessary for graphical apps like games.
If not I suppose 1024x would be just fine. I'm mostly interested in the LCD for text, space, heat and whatever other advantages.

Since I like to play with linux I'll need to go with Nvidia, probably the Ti4200 and probably with the 128MB mem. One of the articles you listed, written about 6 months ago suggested 128m card less limiting than the 64. I think for the meager price diff it's the wiser choice.
Which brand would you recommend. I read all the personal comments posted by newegg customers about their purchases. I limit my options to 5 star ***** collective comments and read for other points of interest such as their overclocking results.
I would like a card that overclocks well AND is quiet. This past year and a half with a noisy pc has made me sensitive to that issue.

Thanks for the links and suggestions, and please keep them coming.

 

[AnAndAustin]

Check that last link again. You'll find on a std 4200 1280x1024x32 with max details is between 60-100FPS and the Antalus bm is supposedly more demanding than the majority of the actual game. Most people find 60FPS the place to be although there are a few happy with 30FPS and a few others who demand 100FPS. That means you should be able to get decent perf even when 2xAA is enabled as it takes about a 10% perf hit and 4400 is very representative of what an o/c'ed 4200 will achieve. By lowering the details slightly the FPS will be well boosted if the need arises. Considering your reqs and budget a 4200 seems the wisest choice by quite a margin. If you o/c a 4200 a little and have at least an Athlon 1.4ghz (although an XP2000+ is pref and pretty cheap too) I'd say UT2003 is playable even in 1280x1024x32 (the LCD native res avoids distortions etc) and at worst you'd have to back off the details slightly or drop to 1024x768x32.

EDIT: As for brand I'd just avoid AOpen, EVGA and the standard Gainward cards. Otherwise it's VERY even between ALL the manus. IIRC Abit has one of the quietest cooling solutions. Check out these 4200 roundups for more specific info:

http://www.tech-report.com/reviews/2002q3/ti4200s/index.x?pg=1

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1643

 

[bupkus]

I just got the full UT2003 installation and it's much faster than the demo even with my G550.