Why the hell do I need a video card?

[Paveslave]

My friend has a computer with on-board video capable of upt to 64 mb, whatever you tell it to use in bios. The thing is, is that he only has 256 sdram to share with the video and his other mothorboard functions. Windows XP likes to use most of it, and then the video running at 32mb takes the rest. When he is in windows with no other programs running, except norton (not to mention all the xp services crap), he only has about 50mb of ram available. This really sucks the speed out of doing just about anything.

He's not into gaming, except his kids like to play roller coaster tycoon and browse the web a lot. What would be the best option? Should he throw a generic 32mb+ AGP video card in there to free up the onboard ram, or should he just upgrade to 512mb RAM and call it a day. What would be the most efficient way to increase his available ram, without sacrificing too much $$.

BTW, he is running a ASROCK g-pro with a Pentium 4 2000, 256mb SDRAM, with onboard sound, onboard video, Seagate 60 gig HD, and two 40X CR-RWs.

Any options on the best and cheapest way to go? This is mainly an office/internet type computer, but it needs some speed. Thanks

 

[Corporate Thug]

upgrade to 512

 

[modedepe]

Upgrade the system ram to 512mb. I don't like running any less than that with winxp, even if you're only doing office apps.

 

[kylebisme]

ya more ram would do some good things, but roller coaster tycoon is still going to run just as bad.

 

[Paveslave]

Would upgrading the system ram to 512mb still help with the managing of the ram. As you can see by my sig, I don't use the onboard anything just because I don't like wasting system memory when I could be using the card(s) memory.
Even with 512mb, would you really want the RAM to be prossessing video and everything else, all the time? I guess I'm just trying to figure out if they would benefit more from not letting the onboard graphics card use the onboard ram at all.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: Paveslave
Would upgrading the system ram to 512mb still help with the managing of the ram. As you can see by my sig, I don't use the onboard anything just because I don't like wasting system memory when I could be using the card(s) memory.

aside from videocard and some disk controlers, add on cards don't have ram on them anyway so useing an add on card instead of onboard isn't saveing you ram in those situations.

Even with 512mb, would you really want the RAM to be prossessing video and everything else, all the time? I guess I'm just trying to figure out if they would benefit more from not letting the onboard graphics card use the onboard ram at all.

well he got an add on card he would then use all 256mb of ram for the system. if he got another 256mb stick and used the onboard video set to use 32mb or 64mb he would have 480mb or 448mb respectivly. so geting a videocard to free system ram will obviously leave him with less ram than buying another 256mb stick.

 

[SneakyStuff]

you can just get both you know..... SDram isnt exactly the hottest item on the market today. RAM HERE and get a VIDEO CARD there. boom, you're done!

 

[Pete]

More RAM would be the better buy, as every app would benefit from it. I'd look out for a good deal after rebates at BestBuy/CompUSA/OfficeMax/OfficeDepot/Staples. $56 seems like a total rip-off for only 256MB of slow SDRAM.

RCT isn't even 3D, IIRC, so a new video card shouldn't speed things up too much. Your friend's onboard video probably sucks anyway, though, so he may want to throw in a cheap $33 Radeon 7000 from NewEgg just for the nicer 2D, though at that price 3D speed will be pretty much abysmal on newer games. If he plans on any 3D gaming at all, don't get anything less than this $47 GF4MX440 (decent speed, full range of output options) or, better yet, this $51 Radeon 9100 (much faster and more capable, only "VGA" out).

 

[cm123]

Originally posted by: Pete
More RAM would be the better buy, as every app would benefit from it. I'd look out for a good deal after rebates at BestBuy/CompUSA/OfficeMax/OfficeDepot/Staples. $56 seems like a total rip-off for only 256MB of slow SDRAM.

RCT isn't even 3D, IIRC, so a new video card shouldn't speed things up too much. Your friend's onboard video probably sucks anyway, though, so he may want to throw in a cheap $33 Radeon 7000 from NewEgg just for the nicer 2D, though at that price 3D speed will be pretty much abysmal on newer games. If he plans on any 3D gaming at all, don't get anything less than this $47 GF4MX440 (decent speed, full range of output options) or, better yet, this $51 Radeon 9100 (much faster and more capable, only "VGA" out).

take the $56 and buy a FX5200 128mb, 2D faster, less load on system (32mb more free ram), small game or 2 will play fine, welcome in the world of viewable 3D...

Put your video card in your buddies PC and test.

 

[Keysplayr]

See that! your answering your own questions! You have the right idea. System ram should stay system ram. Video should have its own faster mem. Even laptops are integrating separate memory dedicated to video the last couple of years.

 

[SneakyStuff]

a 5200? You're kidding me right? Sorry for the foreign language, but heres proof 5200 GETTING KILLED

 

[cm123]

Originally posted by: SneakyStuff
a 5200? You're kidding me right? Sorry for the foreign language, but heres proof 5200 GETTING KILLED

Crazy? (so is a debate on cheap cards), look
HERE, not only do you pickup Dx9, results of 5200 are ahead of cards costing the same and this cheap...


another
HERE

and HERE, r9000 can't match the 5200 in english...

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: cm123


Crazy? (so is a debate on cheap cards), look
HERE, not only do you pickup Dx9, results of 5200 are ahead of cards costing the same and this cheap...

Um... the 5200 gets whupped by that benchmark. And you can't really draw very strong conclusions from a bench where most of the cards are pulling single digit FPS numbers (other than that they're all too slow for that test).

another
HERE

Aside from the fact that it's over a year old, that's a 5200 Ultra, which is about twice as expensive as the regular FX5200.

much more recent THG benches with UT2K3

and here's a semi-DX9 bench.

The 5200U is barely faster than a GF4MX at double the price. The FX5200 isn't *that* bad, but it's still more expensive than the other cards listed for a very, very small performance gain.

THG price/performance chart

 

[SneakyStuff]

Ok, in simple terms, I owned a 5200, and now I don't.

 

[cm123]

Originally posted by: Matthias99

Originally posted by: cm123


Crazy? (so is a debate on cheap cards), look
HERE, not only do you pickup Dx9, results of 5200 are ahead of cards costing the same and this cheap...

Um... the 5200 gets whupped by that benchmark. And you can't really draw very strong conclusions from a bench where most of the cards are pulling single digit FPS numbers (other than that they're all too slow for that test).

another
HERE

Aside from the fact that it's over a year old, that's a 5200 Ultra, which is about twice as expensive as the regular FX5200.

much more recent THG benches with UT2K3

and here's a semi-DX9 bench.

The 5200U is barely faster than a GF4MX at double the price. The FX5200 isn't *that* bad, but it's still more expensive than the other cards listed for a very, very small performance gain.

THG price/performance chart

You must of not even looked at reviews, the 5200 does NOT get beat by a r9000 (nor will it from a r9200se), its faster than all the cheap cards benched... the r9000 did not even run the test.

If he's ready to spend a bit more, he could get many cards faster than a 5200, doesn't sound as he is, nor plays games much, 2D on the 5200 vs other cheap cards is faster... fits his bill.

 

[cm123]

Originally posted by: SneakyStuff
Ok, in simple terms, I owned a 5200, and now I don't.

I owned many cards, and now I don't, that says almost nothing...

9700 gone for a FX5950, 9800pro gone for a fx5950, still have a Retail 9800XT, used about 5 mins. love to get rid of for another FX5950, Ti4400 gone for a R9600Pro, R9800 Pro 128mb used less than 1 hour... its going too, as soon as I eBay it.

All that says nothing, he plays almost no games, needs speed (2D), cost is a concern, and needs the best bang for the buck cheap...

 

[Matthias99]

My point is that the 5200 is only a few percent faster than something like a GF4MX, yet is a significant step up in price. And the 9100, at about the same price, kicks its ass pretty thoroughly. And if he doesn't care at all about 3D, he might as well buy a TNT2 or R7000.

The FX5200 is an overpriced piece of junk. If you can't see that you're deluding yourself.

 

[cm123]

Originally posted by: Matthias99
My point is that the 5200 is only a few percent faster than something like a GF4MX, yet is a significant step up in price. And the 9100, at about the same price, kicks its ass pretty thoroughly. And if he doesn't care at all about 3D, he might as well buy a TNT2 or R7000.

The FX5200 is an overpriced piece of junk. If you can't see that you're deluding yourself.

oh, said like a true ATI fanboy... well then, for a little more get the FX5900XT, its faster too.

Read his needs, small amount of 3D, needs speed (2D), why bother with old tech. costing in the same price area, get Dx9 card that lets his kid have small amount of fun and just works... sounds as his budget is low, find a card in that range that meets this and beats the 5200 for that matter.

If ATI, it would take a full R9200 (not 9200se) to match and beat a 5200 all around... and still be slower in 2D.

 

[SneakyStuff]

cm125, please, you obviously know VERY little about what you are talking about, until you've owned a 5200, you have no idea what you are talking about, benchmarks are wonderful and all, but gaming is the ultimate benchmark, and that is something a 5200 is NOT suited for. End of story, and you dare to mention VALUE?! a Radeon 7000 would suit him fine for 2-d apps, so why would you reccomend a vastly more expensive 5200? No sense WHAT-SO-EVA!

EDIT: Oh yes, I don;t believe there is a ROLLER COASTER TYCOON benchmark either, yeesh 2-d is 2-d.

 

[Matthias99]

Yes, that's it. When you can't beat someone's argument, call them names. Two of the cards I recommended (The GF4MX and TNT2) were NVIDIA boards, in case you hadn't noticed.

find a card in that range that meets this and beats the 5200 for that matter.

GF4MX (80-90% of the performance for 2/3 the price -- that's why it's the best price/performance in that list I posted above). R9100 64MB (way better 3D performance for about the same price). And while the 5200 supports DX9, its PS2.0 performance is abysmal, making it basically a paper feature.

If ATI, it would take a full R9200 (not 9200se) to match and beat a 5200 all around... and still be slower in 2D.

Probably why the R9200 is about the same price ($55 or so).

And how are any of these cards "slower" in 2D? 2D gaming performance is almost 100% CPU-bound these days.

 

[cm123]

Originally posted by: SneakyStuff
cm125, please, you obviously know VERY little about what you are talking about, until you've owned a 5200, you have no idea what you are talking about, benchmarks are wonderful and all, but gaming is the ultimate benchmark, and that is something a 5200 is NOT suited for. End of story, and you dare to mention VALUE?! a Radeon 7000 would suit him fine for 2-d apps, so why would you reccomend a vastly more expensive 5200? No sense WHAT-SO-EVA!

EDIT: Oh yes, I don;t believe there is a ROLLER COASTER TYCOON benchmark either, yeesh 2-d is 2-d.

ooooo... you might have owned a 5200... it fits his budget, fits his needs (lets see a r7000 play a new kids game), as slow as his onboard.

I agree bench marks are NOT everything, they sure suck though don't they when your card is slower.

What use or do I own:

ATI: Rage 8mb, Maxx (2GPU), R9000, R9100, R9200, R9200SE, R9500, R9600PRO, R9700PRO, R9800PRO, R9800XT

Nvidia: GF, GF2, GF2/ULTRA, GF3, GF3PRO, GF3 ULTRA, TI4200, TI4400, TI 4600, TI4800, FX5200, FX5200ULTRA, FX5600, FX5600ULTRA, FX5800, FX5700, FX5900XT, FX5950, Quadro's (most of them along the way)

Matrox, Permidia, 3Dlabs, Diamondmm, 3Dfx... many from each, I may have missed a few along the way.

What the hell does that really matter in our topic?

The non-SE9200 is more than cost of the 5200, if you go that high, why stop for a little bit more you can have so many more options?

We are not talking only 2D gaming, 2D programs as well, many cheap kids games are now 3D... nice to have a card to play a new game along the way.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: cm123

Originally posted by: Matthias99

Originally posted by: cm123


Crazy? (so is a debate on cheap cards), look
HERE, not only do you pickup Dx9, results of 5200 are ahead of cards costing the same and this cheap...

Um... the 5200 gets whupped by that benchmark. And you can't really draw very strong conclusions from a bench where most of the cards are pulling single digit FPS numbers (other than that they're all too slow for that test).

another
HERE

Aside from the fact that it's over a year old, that's a 5200 Ultra, which is about twice as expensive as the regular FX5200.

much more recent THG benches with UT2K3

and here's a semi-DX9 bench.

The 5200U is barely faster than a GF4MX at double the price. The FX5200 isn't *that* bad, but it's still more expensive than the other cards listed for a very, very small performance gain.

THG price/performance chart

You must of not even looked at reviews, the 5200 does NOT get beat by a r9000 (nor will it from a r9200se), its faster than all the cheap cards benched... the r9000 did not even run the test.

If he's ready to spend a bit more, he could get many cards faster than a 5200, doesn't sound as he is, nor plays games much, 2D on the 5200 vs other cheap cards is faster... fits his bill.

Thats why we are suggesting a 9100. Can we get back on track here please? Just ignore him. He'll go away if you dont look him in the eyes, err, eye.

 

[cm123]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: cm123

Originally posted by: Matthias99

Originally posted by: cm123


Crazy? (so is a debate on cheap cards), look
HERE, not only do you pickup Dx9, results of 5200 are ahead of cards costing the same and this cheap...

Um... the 5200 gets whupped by that benchmark. And you can't really draw very strong conclusions from a bench where most of the cards are pulling single digit FPS numbers (other than that they're all too slow for that test).

another
HERE

Aside from the fact that it's over a year old, that's a 5200 Ultra, which is about twice as expensive as the regular FX5200.

much more recent THG benches with UT2K3

and here's a semi-DX9 bench.

The 5200U is barely faster than a GF4MX at double the price. The FX5200 isn't *that* bad, but it's still more expensive than the other cards listed for a very, very small performance gain.

THG price/performance chart

You must of not even looked at reviews, the 5200 does NOT get beat by a r9000 (nor will it from a r9200se), its faster than all the cheap cards benched... the r9000 did not even run the test.

If he's ready to spend a bit more, he could get many cards faster than a 5200, doesn't sound as he is, nor plays games much, 2D on the 5200 vs other cheap cards is faster... fits his bill.

Thats why we are suggesting a 9100. Can we get back on track here please? Just ignore him. He'll go away if you dont look him in the eyes, err, eye.

If you can find stock on them, of course your now into R9600 price area, so why bother with old card that still lack luster 2D performance & 3D for that matter...

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: cm123

take the $56 and buy a FX5200 128mb, 2D faster, less load on system (32mb more free ram), small game or 2 will play fine, welcome in the world of viewable 3D...

Put your video card in your buddies PC and test.[/quote]


eww, 64bit memory bus 5200 = bad!!!

 

[jjmIII]

eww, 64bit memory bus 5200 = bad!!!

Nope....they come in 128bit too. I have a 5600u, but am toying with a 128bit 128mb 5200. It runs 250/333 default, and played the painkiller demo my buddy had pretty nice! Me....I don't game. The card looked pretty good though.

No matter your choice, don't forget our FS/T forum. My buddy grabbed two of these 5200's (one for me) for $30 each shipped. Their new!

Nvidia drivers, and coolbits rule in my opinion .

Enjoy your choices!

EDIT: If the choice was 256 more of SDram, or a card.....I'd go card. SDram sux anyhow . However, like twins, both is best .