Is this <$100 Card OK??

[DaveR]

OK, I do not play games and I am putting together a P4 2.4C OC system. As I said, I do not play games but need a fast card for Large spreadsheets and generating web pages.

I see that I can get a ChainTech A-fx20 (fx5200) 256MB memory 128 bit card for about $80. I also see an Apollo 128 MB for $63 or 256MB for $87.

So, I was wondering if I would see any improvement going to 256MB of memory and if the Apollo is worth getting. It seems that the extra 128MB is a $25 increase. I am concerned that I can not find an Apollo site for drivers, etc.

Also, any other suggestions? I also believe that a card that includes a fan is something I should look for.

TIA,

Dave

 

[Jayczar]

Apollo is actually Joytech

 

[EarthwormJim]

Since you don't game, go for the cheapest card. Only look for a fan if you plan to overclock it. As for drivers, all Nvidia cards (desktop models that is) use Nvidia Forceware drivers so you can get them on nvidia's web page.

 

[vshah]

If you plan on working with dual displays (which might be helpful considering you're working with large spreadsheets etc.) i'd go with an nvidia card as they have slightly better dual display support.

like this one 🙂

-Vivan

 

[KF]

>I do not play games
>I was wondering if I would see any improvement going to 256MB of memory

At a resolution of 1200 x 1600 and 32 bit color (4 bytes), the video card would use less than 8 megabytes (1200 x1600 x 4) for the screen, so 16 times that (128 M) ought to be plenty. 16 M ought to be plently. I believe they sometimes write to a buffer that is not displayed and then flip to the new screen when it is complete. That way the update is seamless, but you need twice the memory.

For games, they use the extra memory for other things besides the screen.

 

[aafuss]

It's great-I have a Jetway FX5200 and it's fine for MS simulation games-Links,CFS,etc with smooth speed.

 

[Keysplayr]

If your not going to game, get yourself a Matrox 16MB or 32MB dual head G400 or 450 for about 30.00 bucks on ebay. I just got one for my workstation and the desktop and all the apps I run look absolutely beautiful, clear and crisp.

If your not going to game, you dont need a lot of memory. An 8MB card would more than suffice for 1600x1200 32bit color.

 

[GullyFoyle]

2d drawing speed is basically a wash across all chipsets, for at least the last 5 years.

Without the requirement of fast 3D, you'd be better off getting a card that doesn't require a fan, and eliminate the extra power draw, noise, and possible failure of the fan leading to card damage. I've read many times of people upgrading their video card, just because the fan went bad and they don't know how to replace it.

I haven't seen it myself, but I have read enough times to believe it, that the Matrox cards have superior 2D, so I would look that way if I were in your circumstance. If you don't want a used card, if you look hard enough, you'll be able to find some place still selling new ones.

 

[Blastman]

I agree with keys. Since you are not gaming 2D/display quality is going to be a priority.

Outside of Matrox, I?m going to suggest a Sapphire 9600. The Sapphire cards have very good signal/display quality -- right up there with the BB ATI cards in my experience.

9600SE 128MB $71

or a little more speed ?

9600 128MB $97

 

[Johnbear007]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
If your not going to game, get yourself a Matrox 16MB or 32MB dual head G400 or 450 for about 30.00 bucks on ebay. I just got one for my workstation and the desktop and all the apps I run look absolutely beautiful, clear and crisp.

If your not going to game, you dont need a lot of memory. An 8MB card would more than suffice for 1600x1200 32bit color.

I agree. If you are not gaming get a matrox card. and you dont need 128 mb even, 16mb would be enough.

 

[DaveR]

Thank you all for the great comments. Yes, dual monitors would be great but if it were dual vga and AGP. I have seen several "don't get one with a fan" comments and will look into this. Also, it seems like 256MB is a waste as well. BUT..the Sapphire 256 MB version is only $7 more. It may be worth $7 to double the memory. I may do some video on this system.


I do have a concern about the Sapphire 9600. Isn't there a conflict with the ASUS P4C800-E Deluxe I am getting? I heard it is on the 9500 Pro and 9700 so the 9600 is OK I guess.


Thanks again.

 

[nick1985]

Originally posted by: aafuss
It's great-I have a Jetway FX5200 and it's fine for MS simulation games-Links,CFS,etc with smooth speed.

stop with your damn 5200!. seriously, almost every one of your posts is about your "awesome jetway 5200". no one cares, your card sucks balls man.


anyway, if you dont game i suggest a matrox card for the best 2D Image Quality. and 256 ram is worthless 😉. on 9600's, the 256 meg versions are actually SLOWER. they lower the clockspeeds and offer "256 MEGS OF RAM!!!" and the consumer goes crazy over 256 ram, not knowing they are buying a slower card. marketing at its best...

 

[ponyo]

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: aafuss
It's great-I have a Jetway FX5200 and it's fine for MS simulation games-Links,CFS,etc with smooth speed.

stop with your damn 5200!. seriously, almost every one of your posts is about your "awesome jetway 5200". no one cares, your card sucks balls man.

lol. Relax. I think he knows that. If he doesn't, does it matter since he's happy?

Jetway 5200 fan.

 

[jdogg707]

I would grab the Matrox in your situtation, as it will yield the best 2D image quality, but if you plan on doing any gaming at all past what MS puts on your system when you install Windows,you may want to consider the 9600. 256MB is waste unless you get it on a high end card, since most of the low end cards are bandwidth limited anyway, and wouldn't provide a performance boost at all. You would never be able to play at the resolutions that 256MB of RAM on your graphics card would benefit. 128MB in your situtation is overkill. Get Matrox or ATI for the image quality.

 

[Dman877]

Intel Extreme graphix anyone?

 

[DaveR]

So, if I go with the 9600 I should stick with the 128MB! Who would have thought, except the same can happen with large cache sizes as well. They can hurt some performance.

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: aafuss
It's great-I have a Jetway FX5200 and it's fine for MS simulation games-Links,CFS,etc with smooth speed.

stop with your damn 5200!. seriously, almost every one of your posts is about your "awesome jetway 5200". no one cares, your card sucks balls man.


anyway, if you dont game i suggest a matrox card for the best 2D Image Quality. and 256 ram is worthless 😉. on 9600's, the 256 meg versions are actually SLOWER. they lower the clockspeeds and offer "256 MEGS OF RAM!!!" and the consumer goes crazy over 256 ram, not knowing they are buying a slower card. marketing at its best...

 

[Cerb]

No games? ATi 9200 SE 64MB. Maybe look at Matrox, too. For being cheap and having a ribbon cable for VGA, I am quite impressed w/ Info-tek's 9200 SE.

 

[faye]

so, talking about only 2d, will a Matrox better than a Radeon 9100 with 128MB?

Is there something called a dvi divider? or vga divider? so one display output and have 2 display? i don't mean two display with the same screen, but 2 seperate screens.
??

 

[vshah]

Originally posted by: faye
so, talking about only 2d, will a Matrox better than a Radeon 9100 with 128MB?

Is there something called a dvi divider? or vga divider? so one display output and have 2 display? i don't mean two display with the same screen, but 2 seperate screens.
??

the matrox would be slightly better, yes. most cards come with dual outputs anyway, so the video splitter you're talking about would be redundant anyway. unless you want three displays.

-Vivan

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: DaveR
So, if I go with the 9600 I should stick with the 128MB! Who would have thought, except the same can happen with large cache sizes as well. They can hurt some performance.





Are you even listening to us?

You dont game = Matrox G400 or 450 with dual head. AGP. there are no fans on them. quiet. 16 or 32MB (does not matter which)

Forget 9600 forget 64 or 128 or 256MB of ram. You dont game, you dont need this crap.

Matrox is the king of 2D. Why you are even contemplating anything else for your 2D only endeavors leads me to believe you are not really concerned with a top quality 2D card but are going for the hype. I have said my piece. Good luck to you.

 

[McArra]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: DaveR
So, if I go with the 9600 I should stick with the 128MB! Who would have thought, except the same can happen with large cache sizes as well. They can hurt some performance.





Are you even listening to us?

You dont game = Matrox G400 or 450 with dual head. AGP. there are no fans on them. quiet. 16 or 32MB (does not matter which)

Forget 9600 forget 64 or 128 or 256MB of ram. You dont game, you dont need this crap.

Matrox is the king of 2D. Why you are even contemplating anything else for your 2D only endeavors leads me to believe you are not really concerned with a top quality 2D card but are going for the hype. I have said my piece. Good luck to you.

Lol!!! Calm down 🙂 . He may isn't sure if he won't play games and wants something better in 3d in case he one day wants to play. 9600 has very good 2d quality (not as good as matrox from what people says) and has an acceptable 3d performance for a non-hard gamer. Of course 256mb means less memory clock and so less performance and it's not needed.

 

[tigereye]

Originally posted by: McArra

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Lol!!! Calm down 🙂 . He may isn't sure if he won't play games and wants something better in 3d in case he one day wants to play. 9600 has very good 2d quality (not as good as matrox from what people says) and has an acceptable 3d performance for a non-hard gamer. Of course 256mb means less memory clock and so less performance and it's not needed.

Well, if he thinks that maybe some day he'll want to play games, then a 5200 DEFINITELY isn't what he should be looking at. In that case something like a Ti4200 would be better. However, since he explicitly mentioned no games, then he should maximize his 2d quality and go with matrox.

 

[DaveR]

Yup...what he said. 🙂

Of course I am reading all of this but I said I do not usually play games but there is SOME video that I use and I never said I would NEVER platy a game.

Originally posted by: McArra

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: DaveR
So, if I go with the 9600 I should stick with the 128MB! Who would have thought, except the same can happen with large cache sizes as well. They can hurt some performance.





Are you even listening to us?

You dont game = Matrox G400 or 450 with dual head. AGP. there are no fans on them. quiet. 16 or 32MB (does not matter which)

Forget 9600 forget 64 or 128 or 256MB of ram. You dont game, you dont need this crap.

Matrox is the king of 2D. Why you are even contemplating anything else for your 2D only endeavors leads me to believe you are not really concerned with a top quality 2D card but are going for the hype. I have said my piece. Good luck to you.

Lol!!! Calm down 🙂 . He may isn't sure if he won't play games and wants something better in 3d in case he one day wants to play. 9600 has very good 2d quality (not as good as matrox from what people says) and has an acceptable 3d performance for a non-hard gamer. Of course 256mb means less memory clock and so less performance and it's not needed.