Good Graphics Card for $60 - $70 price range

[irenealan]

So the Ti4200 would even beat a plain 9600... the reason why I thought to get the 9600 cuz I saw a chart post earlier that the performance of a 9600 would beat Ti4200 on a Call of Duty benchmark! But since most of you guys quoted for the Ti4200, I would get in over the 9600! So is the Visiontek a good brand for the card as suggested in the link? Thanks.

Originally posted by: Cerb

Originally posted by: irenealan
One thing I don't understand is, is there much difference between a 64 and 128 bit card? Also there are 128 bit card out there like the ATI 9200 for a very low price, are they really 128 bit? I remember reading a post here that someone mention some cards are not really 128 bit so we got to be careful!

Also if I decided to go with the Sapphire ATI 9600 at Newegg (another $20 to add =P), is it a SE or Pro or XT? Which one is better?

Not SE. You can look at the PCB and tell if it is 64-bit or 128-bit.
Difference? Difference?! The 128-bit version has double the memory bandwidth! Yes, an astounding difference, particularly for such a minimal cost gap.
If you decided to go with the plain 9600 for gaming, you'd be silly. A 9600 XT only slightly wins over a GF4 Ti 4200, and then not even in all games. And that's not counting that most GF4 cards could get around a 20% OC pretty regularly, whereas 9600 cards aren't that predictable.

 

[irenealan]

What card is nice? The Ti4200? But I would like to play MS Flight Sim 2004 so is the card not good for it? Or the 9600 not good enough for it? Thanks for your advise!

Originally posted by: SneakyStuff
That's a nice card btw, my cousin owned one before getting his radeon 9500 pro, it was amazing, in fact, the only reason he upgraded is because all he plays now is flight sim 2004

 

[irenealan]

So the Ti4200 is not worthy for such price? Is there a better card for such price or the card can be bought cheaper? Please advise!

Originally posted by: Nohr

Originally posted by: nick1985
END OF THREAD

ResellerRatings - Nice price but it ain't worth it. :disgust:

 

[Blastman]

If you are on a strict budget, between the 5200 and 9200, I?d take the 9200. Judging by THG it seems to outperform the 5200 by quite a bit sometimes and ATI cards perform well in MS Flight Sim 2004.

If you can afford to make the jump to the $95 9600 I linked, that would be a nice jump in performance and will allow you to use image quality enhancements like AF and AA.

 

[irenealan]

Thanks for your advise... I think I can go from the jump of $15 to get a better card like the Ti4200 or even a more jump to the 9600... but I just wonder if I should get the Ti4200 or the 9600... there was a linke posted earlier for the Ti4200 and the other link you post for the 9600, I just wonder which one is a better deal... as compared in price wise and performance wise. Thanks.

Sorry but what's AF and AA and what do I do it for? Thanks.

Originally posted by: Blastman
If you are on a strict budget, between the 5200 and 9200, I?d take the 9200. Judging by THG it seems to outperform the 5200 by quite a bit sometimes and ATI cards perform well in MS Flight Sim 2004.

If you can afford to make the jump to the $95 9600 I linked, that would be a nice jump in performance and will allow you to use image quality enhancements like AF and AA.

 

[Blastman]

AF cleans up blurry textures. Check the MS : FS 2004 picture ?
hardocpThe 5700 isn?t doing much AF like it should be so the ground looks better on the 9600.

AA= Anti Aliasing.. try a google seach.

 

[nick1985]

4200 > 9600 non pro

 

[Gagabiji]

Originally posted by: irenealan
Sorry I forgot to ask, so based on everyone's comment, the deal in Newegg today is not that hot?

Gigabyte ATI RADEON 9200 128MB Model GV-R92128DH RETAIL $65.00
VGA CHAINTECH Geforce FX 5200 128MB DDR . RETAIL BOX $59.99

right?

No, not that hot.

 

[irenealan]

sorry now I am confused... it seems based on what you said a 9600 is better in some cases then the 5700 and yet Nick suggested that the Ti4200 is better than 9600...

so afterall should I just get the Ti4200 since it's better than the 9600 and 5700? Thanks...

an outside question, what makes the Ti4200 so good, it seems everybody recommends it even over the ATI 9600 or the FX series of GeForce...???

Originally posted by: Blastman
AF cleans up blurry textures. Check the MS : FS 2004 picture ?
hardocpThe 5700 isn?t doing much AF like it should be so the ground looks better on the 9600.

AA= Anti Aliasing.. try a google seach.

 

[Nohr]

Originally posted by: irenealan
So the Ti4200 is not worthy for such price? Is there a better card for such price or the card can be bought cheaper? Please advise!

Originally posted by: Nohr

Originally posted by: nick1985
END OF THREAD

ResellerRatings - Nice price but it ain't worth it. :disgust:

Yes it's a good card for a good price, however I can't say I'd want to buy anything from that particular store after looking at their entry on ResellerRatings.

 

[irenealan]

Thanks it seems that I should get the Ti4200 over the 9600 but if so where should I get it? Since the rating for the previous linked site is bad. What's usually a Ti4200 priced at? If both the Ti4200 and 9600 price around same, should I still get the Ti4200 over the 9600 instead? I am looking forward to play BF: Vietname, MS Flight Sim and Price of Persia or maybe Halo...

 

[Cerb]

The 9600 will be faster than the 4200 if you raise the AA and AF to levels that make it unplayable.
The 9600 Pro or 9600 XT will be faster in pretty mcuh all but Doom 3, but the difference is minimal (trust me, I went from a Ti 4200 to 9600 XT).
The 5700 will be faster if you raise the AA and AF at all.
If you're satisfied with lower levels of AF/AA (which most people are), the GF4 Ti 4200 will be better in all cases than the 9600, but slightly slower than the 5700.
Checking with good feedbacks and such:
Newegg: $130 Leadtek 5700
Monarch: $99 Ti 4200
Newegg: $132 9600 Pro

The performance difference between these cards is about even. In some cases, the FX comes in ahead, in some the 9600 Pro, and an equal amount of time, the 4200 keeps pace with both. In any case, less than the 9600 Pro, 5700, or 4200 is wasted money for gaming. The 5700 and 9600 Pro will both do better for newer games.

I had no idea that Shentech had such a low rating...if they didn't, a $80 GF4 would be a great deal.

 

[irenealan]

so it seems based on what you said it I can stretch my budget over $100 then I should get a 9600 since it's comparable to the 5700... if not Ti4200 would still be great since the Ti4200 is almost the same if not better than the 5700 or 9600 and these cards are all good for recently released games except D3 or UT2k4?

Thanks.

Originally posted by: Cerb
The 9600 will be faster than the 4200 if you raise the AA and AF to levels that make it unplayable.
The 9600 Pro or 9600 XT will be faster in pretty mcuh all but Doom 3, but the difference is minimal (trust me, I went from a Ti 4200 to 9600 XT).
The 5700 will be faster if you raise the AA and AF at all.
If you're satisfied with lower levels of AF/AA (which most people are), the GF4 Ti 4200 will be better in all cases than the 9600, but slightly slower than the 5700.
Checking with good feedbacks and such:
Newegg: $130 Leadtek 5700
Monarch: $99 Ti 4200
Newegg: $132 9600 Pro

The performance difference between these cards is about even. In some cases, the FX comes in ahead, in some the 9600 Pro, and an equal amount of time, the 4200 keeps pace with both. In any case, less than the 9600 Pro, 5700, or 4200 is wasted money for gaming. The 5700 and 9600 Pro will both do better for newer games.

I had no idea that Shentech had such a low rating...if they didn't, a $80 GF4 would be a great deal.

 

[Blastman]

Under $100 ? the 4200 is faster than the 9600 without AA/AF. The 9600 is fast enough to use AF and (AA sometimes) and will be generally a lot faster than the 4200 with 8AF -- as much as 2x as fast.

It?s a trade off depending on whether u want to use AF.

 

[Pete]

Keep in mind Visiontek no longer makes nVidia products, so if that GF4 breaks, and assuming the card comes with a warranty through Visiontek, you'll likely receive either an ATi card or credit toward the purchase of a new ATi card via RMA. Couple that with what people say is a low ResellerRating, and you're taking a risk buying it there. Look into that $99 4200 at Monarch that Cerb listed, provided the store is reputable.

 

[Cerb]

Originally posted by: Pete
Keep in mind Visiontek no longer makes nVidia products, so if that GF4 breaks, and assuming the card comes with a warranty through Visiontek, you'll likely receive either an ATi card or credit toward the purchase of a new ATi card via RMA. Couple that with what people say is a low ResellerRating, and you're taking a risk buying it there. Look into that $99 4200 at Monarch that Cerb listed, provided the store is reputable.

Yup, Monarch is reputable, they just don't get much talk here...if you browse the site, you might notice they cater to servers quite a bit.

 

[irenealan]

so if I do AA/AF on a 9600 then it will be faster than the Ti4200? Otherwise, the Ti4200 would be faster in general? What if I do AA/AF on the Ti4200, wouldn't it be better also?

Also which one would overclock better? Is there any performance lost with doing AA/AF on the card. Actually I don't know much about AA/AF and don't know how it will affect the card and what advantage would it give...

So a Ti4200 is $100 at Monarch... but if I can find a 9600 for the same price in Newegg, should I get the 9600 instead?

Thanks.

Originally posted by: Blastman
Under $100 ?the 4200 is faster than the 9600 without AA/AF. The 9600 is fast enough to use AF and (AA sometimes) and will be generally a lot faster than the 4200 with 8AF -- as much as 2x as fast.

It?s a trade off depending on whether u want to use AF.

 

[nick1985]

AA/AF on a 9600non pro is worthless....if you try running AA and AF on any CURRENT games that 9600 will die like a ford pinto. go with the 4200...

 

[Blastman]

Well AA is a stretch as already pointed out but certainly 8AF is usable on a 9600.

THG .. UT3?8AF ?10x7 ?

9600 ? 36.0
4200 ? 21.8

UT4 from what I?ve read plays just as fast a UT3 if not faster. Those THG numbers are a maximum detail. Surely some of the detail levels could be reduced a little and you could probably get that average on the 9600 up to the 50-60 range easily.

 

[Cerb]

A 4200 will overclock better. Typically 300/550 or better (250/500 stock). Most 9600s will make or beat 400MHz (Pro), but most don't do well OCing the RAM, and w/o OCing the RAM, the gains are minimal at best.

 

[irenealan]

then can I do AA/AF on 4200? Also is AA/AF really help that much? But what would I lose?

 

[irenealan]

then can I do AA/AF on 4200? Also is AA/AF really help that much? But what would I lose?

 

[Cerb]

Yes, you can.
You lose performance.
The 9600 does multisample, where the GF4 has quincux (special multisample) and supersample (more samples taken, major hit, multisample like the Radeon 9x00 use is a better balance). Quincux basically needs mip-map adjustments to keep it looking good, but is a small performance hit. You lose more on AF w/ a 4200.
Note that I say this, ahving used AA and AF on a 4200 since it was new, and dealing with the performance hit by playing FPS games at lower resolutions (8x6) or lowering most detail settings. It isn't deadly or anything, but you lose performance.
...however, in either case, the 9600 will be unplayable with decent AA/AF. The 4200 will do better with lower levels (quincux, lowered mipmap level), and overclocked .

For $100, you basically can't get much that's worth the money. Not long ago, the 9800 Pro was the best bang/buck at $300, to give you an idea. The video card market has gone like most other devices: design low-end models from the start, rather than using older technology. The result is less-than-linear gains up to $110, a small jump around $130 (9600 Pro, FX 5700), and then major jump (to really good performance around $200 (FX 5900 $160-$200, 9800 Pro $200-$220).

 

[irenealan]

I don't understand why a 9600 would become unplayable if I do AA/AF on it? if it's not good, are you not doing AA/AF on your Ti4200? Also 4200 would do better in lower levels of what? and how can I overclock a Ti4200? Is the 4200 better for OC then the 9600?

It seems that I should spend more money for the card... men I target to spend $50 for the card and now I am up to over $100

Originally posted by: Cerb
Yes, you can.
You lose performance.
The 9600 does multisample, where the GF4 has quincux (special multisample) and supersample (more samples taken, major hit, multisample like the Radeon 9x00 use is a better balance). Quincux basically needs mip-map adjustments to keep it looking good, but is a small performance hit. You lose more on AF w/ a 4200.
Note that I say this, ahving used AA and AF on a 4200 since it was new, and dealing with the performance hit by playing FPS games at lower resolutions (8x6) or lowering most detail settings. It isn't deadly or anything, but you lose performance.
...however, in either case, the 9600 will be unplayable with decent AA/AF. The 4200 will do better with lower levels (quincux, lowered mipmap level), and overclocked .

For $100, you basically can't get much that's worth the money. Not long ago, the 9800 Pro was the best bang/buck at $300, to give you an idea. The video card market has gone like most other devices: design low-end models from the start, rather than using older technology. The result is less-than-linear gains up to $110, a small jump around $130 (9600 Pro, FX 5700), and then major jump (to really good performance around $200 (FX 5900 $160-$200, 9800 Pro $200-$220).

 

[irenealan]

So is this a good deal for a 5700?

Leadtek nVIDIA GeForce FX5700 Video Card, 128MB DDR, 128-bit, DVI/TV Out, 8X AGP, Model "WinFast A360 TDH" -RETAIL

for $130 at newegg?

Is Leadtek a good brand? There's no review on the product... this seems to be something closest to hundreds and yet a quite high end card right? Or is there a better card around such price?