WTB:Video card for new system

speedingAZ

Junior Member
May 4, 2004
10
0
0
I am planning on building a PC using a 865pe chipset. I am leaning towards ABIT MB's. I'll probably get 2.8 Ghz 1MB L2 800Mhz FSB, one DIMM of 512 MB ram to start, GeForce 5200, WD 160 GB SATA, and win XP home.

I am having difficulty selecting my video card. I am not a big gamer but it's nice to have a card that will play most games. Is there an ATI that has better price/performance? 9600SE? Or is 9600XT worth the extra $$ for a non-gamer?
 

SickBeast

Lifer
Jul 21, 2000
14,377
19
81
If you want to play "most games", neither of those cards will suffice.

I suppose you're stuck with the 9600pro at the moment (the XT is a waste IMO). I've heard the 5900XT is a steal, but I'm not sure how much it goes for. The best option at the moment is to buy a used 9700PRO, but this may be slightly outside of your budget.
 

speedingAZ

Junior Member
May 4, 2004
10
0
0
Originally posted by: SickBeast
If you want to play "most games", neither of those cards will suffice.

I suppose you're stuck with the 9600pro at the moment (the XT is a waste IMO). I've heard the 5900XT is a steal, but I'm not sure how much it goes for. The best option at the moment is to buy a used 9700PRO, but this may be slightly outside of your budget.

Do you mean that most games won't even run with a Geforce FX 5200?
I highly doubt that is the case. I am not a big gamer and I don't spend hours and hours playing games so I probably wont care too much about image quality.
I have been thinking about this 9600 pro too ($112) How good is Info-Tek/GenXcube?
http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=14-240-014&depa=0

I am still working on how much to budget for my video card, buthave no clue what all the benchmarks mean.

From this article: http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1933
Not everyone has the money to spend on graphics cards that cost two hundred dollars or more. And, not everyone who has money to spend cares to have the latest and greatest in features and performance. But whatever the reason, when building a PC on a budget, we want the most bang for our buck.
 
Apr 14, 2004
1,599
0
0
Cut down the CPU to 2.4 ghz and increase your video card budget. Your gaming performance will improve. Try a used 9700 pro on ebay or the FS/FT forums.
 

ForceCalibur

Banned
Mar 20, 2004
608
0
0
Most games WILL ofcourse, run on the FX5200. However, some games just.. won't at >25 FPS at more than minimum settings. Games like SW: KOTOR, Farcry, Halo, C&C Generals, etc.
 

speedingAZ

Junior Member
May 4, 2004
10
0
0
Originally posted by: ForceCalibur
Most games WILL ofcourse, run on the FX5200. However, some games just.. won't at >25 FPS at more than minimum settings. Games like SW: KOTOR, Farcry, Halo, C&C Generals, etc.


What does 25 FPS mean? What would an acceptable frame rate beI don't really know how these benchmarks effect actual gameplay. What they mean.
 

aafuss

Member
Feb 5, 2004
82
0
0
I own a FX5200 myself, and recently I've found that EA's Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King is quite playable and great graphics on a FX5200
 

jhurst

Senior member
Mar 29, 2004
663
0
0
Come on guys....haven't you seen the benchmarks. The 9600XT outperforms the FX5900XT at alot of modern games (like UT2K3/4). The 9600XT is a great mid-range card these days. The FX5900XT is pricier, and not much more performance. Get yourself a 9600XT for around $130 and you will be doing fine for now.
 
Apr 17, 2003
37,622
0
76
Originally posted by: jhurst
Come on guys....haven't you seen the benchmarks. The 9600XT outperforms the FX5900XT at alot of modern games (like UT2K3/4). The 9600XT is a great mid-range card these days. The FX5900XT is pricier, and not much more performance. Get yourself a 9600XT for around $130 and you will be doing fine for now.

really?
 

JBT

Lifer
Nov 28, 2001
12,094
1
81
Originally posted by: jhurst
Come on guys....haven't you seen the benchmarks. The 9600XT outperforms the FX5900XT at alot of modern games (like UT2K3/4). The 9600XT is a great mid-range card these days. The FX5900XT is pricier, and not much more performance. Get yourself a 9600XT for around $130 and you will be doing fine for now.

I am pretty sure that is incorrect... the 5900 XT should blow the socks off a 9600 XT
 

AnnoyedGrunt

Senior member
Jan 31, 2004
596
25
81
The thing about video is that even if you are a casual gamer, you will find that games really suck when you have low framerates.

I've been playing up till the beginning of the year with a GF3 Ti200, and it worked fine until I got Call of Duty. I played through the whole game and loved it, but at many point I would get some pretty big slow downs (played @ 1024 x 768). I also tried playing Halo, but that game was pretty much unplayable.

I went out and got a 9700pro (was also looking @ the 5900XT, but got the ATI just for a change, but kinda wish I got the NVIDIA cuz I like their driver interface better and have had better luck with stability). Anyhow, I played through CoD again and the whole game was much, much more immersive and fun. It was much easier to play, too, because I could make quick turns very accurately and aim much better and everything. I also went through and played C&C generals @ 1600 x 1200 resolution, which was cool.

Halo still sucks, but that's cuz my processor (XP1800+) can't really handle it and because I hate the stupid save points (I'm a sucky FPS player, so I need to save after all the hard parts, and I hate how Halo will sometimes save right before you are about to die simply because you cross some stupid line).

Anyhow, I'm not sure what you are using the computer for, but you have an awfully powerful system for most tasks (office work, internet, etc.) and it would be a shame (IMO) to have all that power throttled by a low end vid card.

I'd say that you should spring for a 5700Ultra/9600XT at least, but if you can swing it, then step up to a 9700pro/9800pro or a 5900XT. Those cards should last you quite some time.

-D'oh!
 

Marsumane

Golden Member
Mar 9, 2004
1,171
0
0
Originally posted by: AnnoyedGrunt
The thing about video is that even if you are a casual gamer, you will find that games really suck when you have low framerates.

I've been playing up till the beginning of the year with a GF3 Ti200, and it worked fine until I got Call of Duty. I played through the whole game and loved it, but at many point I would get some pretty big slow downs (played @ 1024 x 768). I also tried playing Halo, but that game was pretty much unplayable.

I went out and got a 9700pro (was also looking @ the 5900XT, but got the ATI just for a change, but kinda wish I got the NVIDIA cuz I like their driver interface better and have had better luck with stability). Anyhow, I played through CoD again and the whole game was much, much more immersive and fun. It was much easier to play, too, because I could make quick turns very accurately and aim much better and everything. I also went through and played C&C generals @ 1600 x 1200 resolution, which was cool.

Halo still sucks, but that's cuz my processor (XP1800+) can't really handle it and because I hate the stupid save points (I'm a sucky FPS player, so I need to save after all the hard parts, and I hate how Halo will sometimes save right before you are about to die simply because you cross some stupid line).

Anyhow, I'm not sure what you are using the computer for, but you have an awfully powerful system for most tasks (office work, internet, etc.) and it would be a shame (IMO) to have all that power throttled by a low end vid card.

I'd say that you should spring for a 5700Ultra/9600XT at least, but if you can swing it, then step up to a 9700pro/9800pro or a 5900XT. Those cards should last you quite some time.

-D'oh!

Actually in halo, after you save, then die, you respawn at the last save point with full health and enemies that were alive at the time that u saved, are put back in their origonal spots.

Halo runs around 25fps for me on an oced 1600+ -> ~1700-1800+ w/ 512pc133 ram and a gf3ti200 @1024x768, textures high, and everything else low. If you make the res lower, u get well above 30fps. It is definately playable in single player.
 

speedingAZ

Junior Member
May 4, 2004
10
0
0
Originally posted by: Schadenfroh
geforce4 TI4200

Yeah I originally thought the FX 5200 was better then the TI4200.
I am now leaning towards the 9600 pro, but if I can find a deal on a 9700 pro or 9800 pro I might get that.
 

speedingAZ

Junior Member
May 4, 2004
10
0
0
Originally posted by: AnnoyedGrunt
...
Anyhow, I'm not sure what you are using the computer for, but you have an awfully powerful system for most tasks (office work, internet, etc.) and it would be a shame (IMO) to have all that power throttled by a low end vid card.
...

I liked your arguement that it would be a shame to have all that hardware wasted by pairing it with a low end video card.
 

jhurst

Senior member
Mar 29, 2004
663
0
0
Originally posted by: JBT
Originally posted by: jhurst
Come on guys....haven't you seen the benchmarks. The 9600XT outperforms the FX5900XT at alot of modern games (like UT2K3/4). The 9600XT is a great mid-range card these days. The FX5900XT is pricier, and not much more performance. Get yourself a 9600XT for around $130 and you will be doing fine for now.

I am pretty sure that is incorrect... the 5900 XT should blow the socks off a 9600 XT

The FX5900XT wins in 3dmark scores....but I think certain games just work better with the ATI chipsets.....b/c I have seen benchmarks where the 9600XT outperforms the 5900XT in gaming. I'll try to find them if I can.