Video Card for a T-Bird 900?

[fwtong]

I am looking for a video card for a T-Bird 900mhz. People have suggested a geforce 4 ti4200, but I don't want to spend the money and I'm not sure if my cpu will maximize the use of the ti4200. I'm not planning on a cpu upgrade until at least next year at the earliest.

 

[spanky]

well how much do u want to spend? there are gts-v's on FS/FT going for about $35. if u can spend more... like $80-$100... there is the radeon 8500le, or the gf3 ti200.

 

[AnAndAustin]

Dude look around, then get back to us with your specific prices and needs!

Oh and click here too!

EDIT: Added 2nd link.

 

[Killrose]

Your CPU will be the bottleneck on last gen and current cards. But a good GF2 GTS or even a Radeon1 DDR ($40-50 used price) will be pushed along well enough to validate getting one of those over let's say a TNT2/Ultra or 3dfx V3 2000/3000.

But if you're not really into gamming buy whatever fits you're price range.

 

[AnAndAustin]

Killrose check the links man. The first one is about gfx card choices for a PIII 1ghz (almost identical to an Athlon 900mhz) and the second link is great for gfx card info.

If you plan to upgrade your CPU then a GF4TI4200 is far and away the best choice. GF3TI200 and Rad8500LE are also excellent cards for the money and will still get a decent enough boost from an Athlon900 to make it worth paying the extra $30. You'll not only get much better perf than with GF2, GF4MX or Xabre but you will also get full DX8 hw functions which the other cards don't have. Rad9000pro are also worth considering, but they are a cut down version of the Rad8500 and hence the Rad8500LE (10% slower than Rad8500) is still much better. If you go Radeon you are best with a true ATI ('built' not 'powered' by ATI) and also pref a retail version.

Here's my summary of gfx card jargon:

 

[AnAndAustin]

Image Quality refers to the stability/clarity of the final image output to the monitor, only above 1024x768x32 is it noticable to most people, and that's if your monitor can handle high refresh rates (72Hz+).

DX8 hw funcs/support means the card has DX8 enhanced features built in to the hw, very important for modern games, plus DX8 cards tend to be a lot faster too.

Anti-Aliasing (AA) is the removal of 'jaggies' or 'pixel step effect'. Your screen is made up of small squares which is fine for lines which are perfectly horiz/vert, but with any kind of diagonal lines/edges you actually get steps rather than a line. Take a close look at these: | / _ . Radeons and GF2 use an old technique which is very sharp but VERY slow while GF3, GF4, Xabre and Rad9700 use a modern technique which is much faster.

Anisotropic Filtering essentially sharpens textures, esp when viewing them from a medium to long distance and is VERY useful with modern AA techniques which are fast but slightly blurrier, Aniso clears this up very nicely.

 

[AnAndAustin]

DVD playback is a pretty small issue for any PC possessing a CPU faster than 600mhz, the only gfx cards worth considering for enhanced DVD playback are the Rad9000/9000pro and the Rad9700 which enhance the playback with DX8 hw functions.

Here's a card summary:

Xabre400, LOADS of promise but too risky at the moment. For pure gaming it is certainly better than GF4MX440 and Rad7500, but it still has compatibility probs and driver issues, with the Rad9000 it will make no sense either.

GF4MX440, fine card, only as fast as a GF2TI (50%ish faster than a GF2MX400) and has no DX8 hw, but it does offer good image quality, good AA, good dual display and good DVD playback.

GF3TI200 is MUCH faster than a GF4MX440 plus the GF3 cards ALL have full DX8 hw. The GF3 cards don't have great image quality, but unless you are IQ aware and plan on lots of working at high res (1024x768x32+) with 72Hz+ refresh rates then IQ isn't that important. GF3 cards lack dual display functionality and don't decode DVD in hw (see the CPU comment above). GF3 do have great AA and Aniso though.

 

[AnAndAustin]

Rad7500 is about as good as a GF4MX440 but with better TVout although the AA on 7500 plain sucks, it is pretty even. GF4MX440 would be the better buy. The Rad7500 like GF4MX440 is NOT full DX8 hw compliant.

Rad8500LE is an excellent full DX8 hw card, a bit faster than a GF3TI200 can achieve at o/c, DVD hw playback, great IQ, dual monitor support and great TVout. It sucks at AA though, and Aniso is fast but low quality.

GF4TI4200 is much faster than Rad8500LE and equals the Rad8500LE in all depts except TVout. The GF4TI cards also have excellent AA and Aniso too. They tend to o/c to GF4TI4400 or GF4TI4600 speeds too. Again GF4TI cards don't usually possess DVD hw playback but see CPU note again.

Regarding non-ATI Radeon cards, like oem ATI versions they usually use lower clocks and cheaper RAM which inhibits o/c'ing. This usually hits their perf by around 10%, not unbearable and probably worth it if they are 15%+ cheaper. The non-ATI cards may also lack the ATI build & image quality, while also often skimping on RAMDACs which destroys dual display functionality.

 

[AnAndAustin]

Rem that an AthlonXP2000+ with GF4MX440 is SLOWER than a Duron1.2ghz with GF3TI200! Also note that an AthlonXP2000+ with GF3TI200 is still SLOWER than an AthlonXP1600+ with GF4TI4200. This illustrates why the gfx card is so important for gaming.

Many gfx cards in real games with CPU Scaling (shows the effect of faster CPUs and gfx card combinations)

TomsHW showing Rad9000pro perf relative to GF4MX440, Xabre400, Rad8500 and GF4TI4200 among others (BUT on a fast CPU)

Tech-Report outlining diffs between Rad8500 and Rad9000pro

 

[AnAndAustin]

It is easy to get carried away with these things. There is certainly no need at all for anybody with a GF3 or Rad8500 to upgrade to any gfx card out there at the moment, all full DX8 hw cards play all current games excellently and you don't even need one off the fastest CPUs, an Athlon 1.4ghz is more than ample to get excellent perf out of these cards. The Rad9700 seems great, but as you say you need to be very rich or a else a total nutter to buy a gfx card for over US$200/£200. At the end of the day if someones PC does what they need it to and does so adequately fast then they should save some cash and stay put.

Just rem that if gaming is at all important then the gfx card is by far the wrong place to skimp, of course you need a balanced system and ideally you want at least a 1.4ghz Athlon or 1.6ghz P4 to begin showing the top card's potentials, however even an Athlon900 can still benefit from a GF3TI200 or Rad8500LE and it really isn't worth getting anything less given the price diff and the pure perf and features you will be sacrificing.

 

[AnAndAustin]

ATI Radeon8500LE is slightly faster than GF3TI200 (even o/c'ed), Rad8500LE has better image quality, TVout, dual monitor support and DVD playback, GF3's only better for AA ... both are under $100! Brand makes a diff for Radeons, and also GF3 too, Leadtek and Gainward are well known for great image quality and some manu's use faster RAM reaching GF3TI500 speeds. For GF4TI cards they all seem to have excellent image quality and as such brand makes little diff, they all perf and o/c almost identical.

GF4TI4200 is certainly better but mostly wasted unless you are thinking of upgrading your CPU in the coming months. You should seriously consider the 128MB version of any card, 64MB will become limiting quite heavily with newer games. EG. 4200-64MB at 285/600 runs slower than 4200-128MB at 250/444 when more than 64MB is req.

Note Commanche4 benchmark: FiringSquad

AnAndTech 4200 roundup

 

[Warthog]

I am getting a 4200 with a P3 700@805. Look at the Anandtech GPU scaling with UT2003 for a reference. I have a GF2 MX. I will get close to 100FPS increase going to a 4200. Not a bad deal till I upgrade the rest of my system. I have considered a GF3 TI200 or regular, but the 4200s are so cheap.

You do need to name a budget though, it will help people give you better advice. Also, you need to ask yourself, "what can't I play right now"? I keep forcing myself to wait till UT2003 comes out till I buy. Right now I am satisfied with my MX. I will even wait till the UT2003 demo before I decide to upgrade the MX. The bad thing is, the upgrade bug is bighting me allot.

 

[AnAndAustin]

3Dmark2001, an accurate idea of how combo stack up (Total marks, games1-4 FPS low and high detail):

Athlon 900:
GF2TI: 3750, 72, 21, 70, 31, 69, 31, na (no DX8 hw support)
GF3TI200: 5500, 82, 26, 92, 52, 81, 36, 34
GF4TI4200: 6650, 86, 25, 138, 76, 84, 37, 41

AthlonXP1800+:
GF2TI: 5700, 103, 41, 96, 44, 100, 50, na (no DX8 hw support)
GF3TI200: 8500, 128, 48, 130, 73, 125, 58, 55
GF4TI4200: 10700, 157, 51, 186, 110, 146, 69, 61

 

[AnAndAustin]

So getting a GF3TI200 will allow you to beat an AthlonXP1800+ with GF2TI/GF4MX440! Getting a 4200 gives a small boost at 900mhz but the real benefit of buying 4200 is being able to upgrade your CPU and have no need at all to upgrade your gfx card. The Rad8500LE is a better choice than GF3TI200 given the superior perf, image quality, DVD hw playback, dual monitor support and great TVout, you just lose AA and high quality Aniso. The 4200 is by far the best all-rounder, superior perf (3D, AA and Aniso), great image quality, dual monitor support and it benefits greatly from faster CPUs.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

get your self a nice gf3 ti200. Don't bother with the ti4200 as you won't see much of an increase from a gf3 to a gf4 without ddr and a higher proc speed.

 

[fwtong]

I see that I have neglected to name a budget. My budget is probably around $100-$150. I can't justify going much higher because I am a student and playing games is something that I do for only about 4 months of the year, when I'm on vacation. I would like an upgrade over my current Geforce2mx 32mb, but I don't want to just buy a Geforce4 TI4200 128mb if I am not going to see the full benefit of it because of my CPU. I plan on upgrading my CPU eventually, but not right away at least a year or two away from doing another mobo/cpu upgrade. My current CPU can still run games, and does just fine with word processing. I just would like to be able to play Neverwinter Nights with some of the graphic options and better resolution. I don't care about VIVO or DVD playback. And, I'm not sure if I should buy now, or wait to see if the introduction of the 9700 is going to cause price drops.

What a great analysis of the cpu/gpu balance.

 

[Soulkeeper]

not sure how much those gf3 ti200's are running but i think a radeon 8500 or 8500le would be a good card for that system
i would get a gf4 if you planned to later upgrade that processor
guess it's a matter of money

 

[Actaeon]

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
get your self a nice gf3 ti200. Don't bother with the ti4200 as you won't see much of an increase from a gf3 to a gf4 without ddr and a higher proc speed.

Agreed.

 

[fwtong]

What's the difference between the Geforce 3 Ti200 and the Geforce 3 Ti500, besides the price?

 

[AnAndAustin]

Nothing but the clocks, other than pure 3D speed the cards are identical just like the GF4TI range of cards. The GF3TI200 is quite a lot slower BUT it is intentionally clocked FAR below its true potential in order to promote sales of the GF3TI500 which retailed for twice the price for a long time. The GF3TI200 o/c's like a dream and at worst tends to reach within 10% of the GF3TI500. The Rad8500LE is still faster unless you plan to use AA or care about high quality Aniso.

So basicly forget the GF4TI4200 if it will be 1 year+ before you get a new CPU, get a GF3TI200, Rad8500LE or Rad8500 ... they are all very close for your stated purposes so buy whatever is cheapest. You really should get a 128MB version which ever card you go for, what are the prices like near you?

 

[fwtong]

Prices are pretty much what I find in the Hot Deals forum. Based on the info, I'm probably going to wait until another good 8500le deal comes up.

 

[Actaeon]

Originally posted by: fwtong
What's the difference between the Geforce 3 Ti200 and the Geforce 3 Ti500, besides the price?

Like AnAndAustin said, nothing but the clock speeds.

GF3 Ti200 =175/400
Vanilla GF3 = 200/460
GF3Ti500 = 240/500

My OEM MSi Ti200 is stable at 244/558, but I run it at 240/544, just to be safe. So it is currently faster than a Ti500. Considering I only paid $69 shipped for it, a month or so back, I got a fairly good deal.

Even running my Athlon at 1.2 ghz, my videocard is still bottlenecked by the CPU. So getting a Ti4200 wouldn't give much of a performance increase over a Ti200. Since you said you're not planning on upgrading your CPU at least till next year, its probally best to go with the Ti200 for now, and upgrade both when you feel the time is right.

 

[spanky]

Originally posted by: fwtong
Prices are pretty much what I find in the Hot Deals forum. Based on the info, I'm probably going to wait until another good 8500le deal comes up.

check the newegg refurb section. not necessarily today... but just pop in every day or two