Video card for Athlon 64 3400+

[Higgs]

Would like recommendation for video card. I am getting a Athlon 64 3400+ with the Neo mobo. 1GB 2 512 Mushkin Ram. Two Seagate 120 SATA drives Raid 0. Not sure which video card to get for playing BF1942 and Call of Duty. Thank you.

 

[Megatomic]

You are kidding with that RAM quantity aren't you? 256MB of RAM when you're getting an A64 and 2 SATA hard drives???

 

[Corporate Thug]

get 512 atleast and a 9800 pro 128

 

[Higgs]

OOPS! Yes that was a mistake.

 

[Megatomic]

Ahh, that looks much more consistent now.

What is your video card budget? And do you have any GPU brand prejudices? I personally like the 5900s and you can find some really great deals on them now.

 

[jdogg707]

9800 Pro for $224.00 at Newegg

 

[Higgs]

No prejudices, just don't want any problems when playing BF1942 with max players and max settings.

 

[Megatomic]

You'll be safe with either an ATI 9800 xxx or an NVidia 5900 xxx.

 

[modedepe]

Originally posted by: Megatomic
You'll be safe with either an ATI 9800 xxx or an NVidia 5900 xxx.

Yeah either of these should suit you fine.

 

[VIAN]

I would get a 256MB card. Either a 9800 Pro 256MB or 5900 Ultra.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: VIAN
I would get a 256MB card. Either a 9800 Pro 256MB or 5900 Ultra.

Lol... You're nothing if not consistant, VIAN.

 

[Higgs]

128 or 256 and what about the 5950 ultra?

 

[videoclone]

Originally posted by: Megatomic
You'll be safe with either an ATI 9800 xxx or an NVidia 5900 xxx.

What if he get a ATI 9800 xxx xxx = se !!! he will have a card slower then a 9600 Pro!

If you dont want BF1942 to slow down at ALL!!! .. get a 9800XT or get a cheap ATI9200 now and wait for the new Nvidia NV40 or ATI R420 to come out in a few months and get 1 of those.

 

[Higgs]

You think the ATI9200 is the best low cost decent card while waiting for the new cards to come out?

 

[VIAN]

128 or 256 and what about the 5950 ultra?

I would get 256MB as I say again. Activision, maker of Call of Duty, recommends a Graphics card with 256MB of VRAM to turn up all effects.

The 9800 Pro 256MB performs very similar and pretty much makes the 9800 XT's price unjustice. The 5950 is expensive and really isn't worth it. The extra 25MHz increase in core speed doesn't do anything for performance. Benchmarks show it.

 

[Higgs]

Thank you.

 

[jdogg707]

Originally posted by: VIAN

128 or 256 and what about the 5950 ultra?

I would get 256MB as I say again. Activision, maker of Call of Duty, recommends a Graphics card with 256MB of VRAM to turn up all effects.

The 9800 Pro 256MB performs very similar and pretty much makes the 9800 XT's price unjustice. The 5950 is expensive and really isn't worth it. The extra 25MHz increase in core speed doesn't do anything for performance. Benchmarks show it.

I guess that's only if you play at 1600x1200...if you want 256MB Card, look at the Sapphire 256MB Radeon 9800 Pro, it's about $300.00

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: VIAN

128 or 256 and what about the 5950 ultra?

I would get 256MB as I say again. Activision, maker of Call of Duty, recommends a Graphics card with 256MB of VRAM to turn up all effects.

The 9800 Pro 256MB performs very similar and pretty much makes the 9800 XT's price unjustice. The 5950 is expensive and really isn't worth it. The extra 25MHz increase in core speed doesn't do anything for performance. Benchmarks show it.

Higgs this guy if the biggest idiot on the video forums... 256MB does nothing unless you play at 1600x1200 OR HIGHER with FSAA and Aniso cranked all the way up. EVEN THEN its less than 10fps difference.

You dont need 256MB for ANY reason, if youre getting an extremely high model that only comes with 256MB, then its a nice perk, but you DONT NEED IT FOR ANYTHING.

 

[VIAN]

Hey, if you're gonna go there, then there is no need to buy 1GB, and there is no need to get 3400+ either. He is obviously buying top quality stuff and for the a little future proof, so why don't you shut your mouth.

He would be fine with a 2500+ and 512MB of ram. Still be able to run the game wouldn't he. THen he could just a 5700 Ultra and still be able to play the game well. If you guys wanna buy the minimum requirements fine. But I'll have the headroom.

 

[otispunkmeyer]

Originally posted by: VIAN
Hey, if you're gonna go there, then there is no need to buy 1GB, and there is no need to get 3400+ either. He is obviously buying top quality stuff and for the a little future proof, so why don't you shut your mouth.

He would be fine with a 2500+ and 512MB of ram. Still be able to run the game wouldn't he. THen he could just a 5700 Ultra and still be able to play the game well. If you guys wanna buy the minimum requirements fine. But I'll have the headroom.

ah yeah but 256mb means that 256bit memory bus has more chips to share....so u loose some bandwidth.....u think u gonna need 256mb for HL2? what u gonna do store DX9 code in them? by the end of this year i think RAW GPU power will be the limiting factor in games....
who need AA and AF at 1600x1200 anyway....its not like the pixels are big enough to notice any aliasing.

256mb = marketing gimmick and is for those shmucks who think more memory equals better graphics card...........like the guy who swapped a 9700pro 128mb for a 256meg 9600

 

[jdogg707]

Originally posted by: otispunkmeyer

Originally posted by: VIAN
Hey, if you're gonna go there, then there is no need to buy 1GB, and there is no need to get 3400+ either. He is obviously buying top quality stuff and for the a little future proof, so why don't you shut your mouth.

He would be fine with a 2500+ and 512MB of ram. Still be able to run the game wouldn't he. THen he could just a 5700 Ultra and still be able to play the game well. If you guys wanna buy the minimum requirements fine. But I'll have the headroom.

ah yeah but 256mb means that 256bit memory bus has more chips to share....so u loose some bandwidth.....u think u gonna need 256mb for HL2? what u gonna do store DX9 code in them? by the end of this year i think RAW GPU power will be the limiting factor in games....
who need AA and AF at 1600x1200 anyway....its not like the pixels are big enough to notice any aliasing.

256mb = marketing gimmick and is for those shmucks who think more memory equals better graphics card...........like the guy who swapped a 9700pro 128mb for a 256meg 9600

I completely agree, 256MB is a waste and will garner you zero performance improvement unless you like to run at 1600x1200+ w/6x AA and 16x AF on...but even then the difference would be minimal. I still say your best value is a Sapphire 9800 Pro for $224.00 @ Newegg.

 

[VIAN]

Well, let's see what he has to say about these benches.

Link

this is today, imagine one year from now.

 

[newb54]

9800 Pro 128 MB for $220 is the only card I would buy now since it is such a good deal.

 

[McArra]

With 8xAF enabled on top of 4xAA, we see the margin between the RADEON 9800 PRO cards swell to 35% at 1600x1200.

Vian, that's what everybody here is telling you!!

 

[otispunkmeyer]

Originally posted by: VIAN
Well, let's see what he has to say about these benches.

Link

this is today, imagine one year from now.

so what like i said 1600x1200 wont look much different with AA and AF coz everythings so small

its still not worth the extra cash for 256mb memory....all resolutions below that theres at most a 4 fps difference...........and at 70+ fps who the hell is gonna notice.......

imagine one year from now?!?!?............ok i imagine a world where every nonce with a 256mb card is being trounced by those with less ram and monster GPU's did you forget that pixel and vertex shading is just abunch of maths? and what crunches numbers better? more memory or more GPU power?

good to see that in your link they have only taken one game into consideration.........nice one......thanks for showing me all the proof i need to buy 256 , wonder bout the rest of the games that people play.