New Graphics Card?

[xenzoso]

Hi there, looking for some advice on new graphics cards. Just did a massive system overhaul but the graphics card is holding the system back at the moment. Here is the system so far:

Athlon 2000 XP
256 PC2700 Ram
ABit KX7 333 Mobo

TNT2 32MB

So far i've been looking at the Hercules Prophet Radeon 8500 128MB and some of the GeForce Ti4200/4400 cards. I've been in favour of the Hercules so far but it seems opinions are pretty mixed at the moment.

I would like to play Doom 3 when the time comes but its not a big issue to be honest...

 

[DeRusto]

Both the Hercules card and most TI4200 cards will run you about the same price, while the nVIDIA card will perform a bit better.

Also, nVIDIA drivers are a bit more streamlined and the 4200 will overclock a bit better than the ATi.

Personally I would still get the Radeon, but that's just me.

 

[KnowsNothing]

I just bought a retail ATI Radeon 8500 128 MB from Buy.com for $136 shipped. That's probably a better deal. I think you can find a thread for that Hot deal in the "Hot Deals" forumn. It supposedly comes with 3 games and a Belkin Nostromo Gamepad thing.

 

[AnAndAustin]

I won't get needlessly heavy or indepth on you xenzoso, check the video threads to verify I know my stuff, and bear in mind this is not my primary forum site.

The XP2000+ is a mighty fine CPU, and you want to match it with a GF4TI4200 as a minimum. It will knock you about $150, but even before o/c'ing it kicks the a$$ of both GF3TI500 and full retail ATI Radeon8500. When o/c'ed you can certainly expect either GF4TI4400 perf (275/550) or GF4TI4600 perf (300/650), o/c depending upon the TYPE (not amount) of RAM used and VERY little else. For 4200's 4.0ns RAM will tend to get you from 250/444 to 300/550 while 3.6ns RAM will often allow 300/620! If you are on a very tight budget then the Rad8500LE is only 10% slower than the Rad8500 and should be quite easily found below $100. The Rad8500/LE are still great cards and are only let down by AA perf and the inferior performing but superior named Rad9000pro (GF3 or GF4MX anyone, LOL). The GF3TI200 is another budget choice, that usually o/c's to within 10% of the GF3TI500 and should be around $80, the AA perf is very good, but the Rad8500/8500LE has better '2D' image quality, TVout and also slightly better 3D perf.

Two important things to note:

1. 128MB is VERY much worth the extra cost for all gfx cards, esp for future games. Not to mention selling on any 64MB card in 12 months time will be pretty tricky.

2. Beware the Radeons! The oem versions often use cheaper (and nastier) RAM and lower clocks with a limited o/c compared to the retail versions. Additionally the 'powered by ATI' compared to the 'built by ATI' also use cheaper (and nastier) RAM and lower clocks with a limited o/c but also the image and build quality may not be as good as a true ATI Radeon. See what the price diffs are like, but unless the prices are far too steep, if you go Radeon get a true ATI and retail card.

If your budget doesn't stretch to a $400 Rad9700 (which is still at least a month away and not 100% finalised) then GF4TI4200 is truly the only logical choice.

 

[AnAndAustin]

Check out these links:

TomsHW, AthlonXP with all manner of gfx cards (inc TNT2, GF3, GF4 and Rad8500/LE)

FiringSquad 4200

AnAndTech 4200 roundup

And there was me promising not to get all indepth. Still if it was my $150+ that was being spent I'd want the peace of mind too (or the peice of mind if someone steered me wrong).

 

[CubicZirconia]

Not to mention selling on any 64MB card in 12 months time will be pretty tricky.

Don't Underestimate the Power of Stupid People in Large Groups

 

[Rand]

They should both be very nice cards and likely either will suit you admirably. IMHO choosing between them really comes down to what you need in a graphics card...
TV-Out/ VIVO- R8500
Dual Display- Pretty much even.
3D performance: Ti4200 is faster, though with the latest drivers the 8500 is reasonably close.
2D Visual quality- R8500.
3D feature set- Tie... GF4 is better in some respects, R8500 is better in others.
DVD playback-R8500
FSAA visual quality- R8500.
FSAA performance- Ti4200
Anisotropic filtering visual quality- Ti4200.
Anisotropic filtering performance- R8500
nVidia has somewhat better driver support also, but the R8500 drivers are pretty mature at this point.
Price: R8500 is cheaper.
Overclocking: Both can usually overclock pretty well, but I'd give the Ti4200 the advantage.
Longevity: Ti4200 has the advantage here. UT2003 could be used as an example of the Ti4200's larger benefit in future games, though given that UT2003 is apparently specifically optimized for nVidia boards it may be something of an excessive scenario.

It really comes down to what you need in a graphics card, for many 3D performance is the primary determinator and in that the Ti4200 is the obvious choice. For others the R8500 may gain preference as it's an admirably well rounded board.

In the end, neither card is likely to disappoint you. Their both quite impressive.

 

[xenzoso]

Hi there, in the end I decided on a TI 4200 with 128mb of RAM before I read the posts (UK/USA time difference) but I'm glad to see I made the right choice. In the UK the 4400 are £50 more and the 4600 are £150 more.

From what I have read so far the 4200, if needs be, can be overclocked but I reckon it'll be fast enough without the need to even do that. By the time Doom 3 is out I should have saved enough for another upgrade.

What worries me slightly more has been playing Alien Versus Predator 2. It seems to access the hard drive alot and in turn slow the game down when it needs data. I haven't noticed this with Warcraft 3 or Neverwinter Nights. Its a Maxtor 7200 RPM drive and has 4GB free. I've yet to fully defrag but considering i only installed not long ago...

Any ideas would be appreciated. Not sure if the new graphics card will take up all the slack and help to fix the problem, I'm sure that my current TNT2 32mb isn't.

 

[AnAndAustin]

Well the new gfx card is unlikely to fix that, when the RAM limit of an AGP card is exceeded it can start utilising up to the allowed 'AGP Aperture Size' as set in the BIOS (I rec half of your system RAM or up to 128MB) and hence uses some system RAM if any is available. However eratic unecessary HD activity is almost always due to the system RAM limit being exceeded, when Windows needs to allocate more RAM than you have available it has to resort to the HD. In both cases above, you take a very significant perf hit when the RAM limit is exceeded but it is much better than running out.

So essentialy your gfx card will definitely improve perf, and enable AA & Aniso effects, but your HD activity is more reminiscent of lack of system RAM. The perf hit is most severe with older drives, ATA/UDMA33 uses far less CPU power than previous HD modes, and ATA66, 100 and 133 again use less and less CPU power, something you really notice when the HD is read during gaming. In any case I would suggest 256MB as a minimum and 1x256MB should cost you £40, well worth it but anything up to 512MB is still very appreciable. It is very much worth running defrag, then set a perminent swap file with a minimum size of 128-256MB (leave the maximum size as it is). This will allocate a set amount of your HD to always be ready in a consecutive chunk whenever needed and is significantly faster than just leaving it 'automatic by Windows'. HTH.

 

[xenzoso]

Cheers for the advice bro. I am using 256 of PC2700 but I reckon i'll be getting more once I can afford it...I think 256 is a bit low these days. I've read that AVP2 has pretty long loading times so it might be a the same in game too.

I think the graphics card was more urgent cos the TNT2 32Mb really struggles on games these days...

 

[AnAndAustin]

Absolutely, 256MB is still avery nice amount, worth upgrading when you have the cash spare, but the gfx card was certainly a VERY wise and worthwhile purchse. Let us know how you find it.

 

[Soulkeeper]

I liked the Cpu scaling of the gf4 in the UT2003 benchmarks
the radeon 8500 seemed to flatten out
i wonder if more driver tweaks could help the radeon later on this year
hope my uncle's athlon 1700+ 256mb pc27000 radeon 8500 system kicks some ass on UT2003 Unreal2 and the new doom or whatever comes out within the next year

 

[xenzoso]

In another post I was asking about the difference between the ASUS 4200 and the Deluxe version. The Deluxe Cards are clocked at 260mhz intead of the usual 250mhz for the core and 550mhz instead of the 444mhz DDR memory clock. This should make a significant difference i've been told. I just wanted to make sure the standard card is still a good choice...

Are most other 4200 cards the same as the standard ASUS?

 

[AnAndAustin]

xenzoso, no need to get carried away. Default clocks mean nothing for GF4TI4200 cards, they are intentionally crippled, otherwise who'd spend the extra cash on 4400 or 4600? The 4200 use exactly the same core as the 4400/4600 and therefore o/c to the same levels, 280-320. Nothing is ever certain in o/c'ing but a HUGE number of uses find STANDARD 4200 cards reach either 300/550 or 300/620 depending if their card uses 4.0ns or 3.6ns RAM, higher defaults on a 4200 mean nothing unless you are petrified of o/c'ing. The days of the 'golden' GF3TI200 have gone, ALL 4200 cards have equal o/c'ing potential and as such don't waste your money on a suped up 4200 card. 3.3ns RAM is pointless on a 4200 because the smaller PCB, 2 fewer layers, TSOP RAM and less power regulation circuitry are what prevent them exceeding 320/620 type speeds (4600 speeds BTW). So the only way to enhance a 4200 is essentially to use everything from the 4400/4600 design and make the default clocks higher, but then this completely defeats the best thing about the 4200, they are small so fit more mobos and are CHEAP! See what the prices are like, but I would rec buying a 4200 based almost entirely on price, features and sw bundle ... a nice brand name is a bonus, but I wouldn't pay much extra to get one. From what I have read, the Asus Deluxe 4200 cards offer higher default clocks and a few board modifications, but it all comes to nothing as it o/c's the same as any other 4200 card. Do yourself a favour and save yourself the cash, when it comes to 4200 cards buy on price, features and sw bundle, but do see if you can get 3.6ns RAM without paying too much extra. Oh, do be sure to get a 128MB 4200, well worth the $20 extra.

 

[xenzoso]

Thanks for all the advice AnAndAustin...its been very much appreciated as has everyone else's. There isn't much I could have done anyway as the ASUS arrives tommorow and it was the cheapest on offer. Its also a 128mb card so should last longer than plumping for the 64mb. Plus the ASUS brand name is a bonus too...

I think the next 2 upgrades will be a bigger hard drive and the memory when money permits (as always ).

 

[Schnieds]

Go with the Ti4200 128MB and O/C it!!!


Much better card than the Radeon 8500....