PDA

View Full Version : Here's one for all us Poor people...Best Budget offering?


Pages : [1] 2

bofh1971
05-13-03, 01:53 PM
Its all very exciting looking at driver tweaks that can push performance to the limit.

However many people out there who play games, can't afford a 2.3Ghz PC with 3 gig of ram all water cooled and overclocked...
(I can dream I suppose)

I am interested in anyone who has access to the budget offerings from both nVidia & ATI.

I put pc's together for lots of people who are on a budget and would be grateful for real advice.

I Love nVidia cards, I have always bought however the cheapest (or slightly above) cards on offer.
My current one being a GF4 MX 440 64mb DDR.

I havent bought an ATI for a long time, they had issues with drivers that made systems fail running Office 97 taskbar (for heavens sake)

I have been informed that drivers Rock these days.....so let the comparisons begin :cool:

saturnotaku
05-13-03, 01:57 PM
Best budget card right now is the Radeon 9500 Pro. However you can find some GeForce4 Ti4200 cards for $90 (64 mb) or $108 (128 mb). Base 9500 (non-pro) cards start at about $131 for 64 mb and $149 for 128. If you're almost totally cash-strapped, you aren't going to find many better cards right now than the Ti4200.

cvearl
05-13-03, 02:19 PM
Originally posted by saturnotaku
Best budget card right now is the Radeon 9500 Pro. However you can find some GeForce4 Ti4200 cards for $90 (64 mb) or $108 (128 mb). Base 9500 (non-pro) cards start at about $131 for 64 mb and $149 for 128. If you're almost totally cash-strapped, you aren't going to find many better cards right now than the Ti4200.

I agree with this mostly. DO NOT, however buy a 9500 non pro. They suck!

Option #1. G4Ti4200. Kicks Azz for the $109 mark! Almost as fast as a 9500 Pro in current games. Until AA and AF are enabled. It's even faster than a 9600 Pro in RAW tests without AA and AF! With AA and AF settings enabled, the 9500 Pro is your baby.

Option #2. 9500 Pro. At $159-$189, (retail vs. OEM) it is slightly faster than a G4TI4200 and really only noticably faster when AA or AF is enabled. But still. You would not apply them that much in todays newer games if you want fast frames on a lower end CPU. I have a 9700 Pro and stay in 2xAA so that I can stay over 70 fps in games like UT2003 and Rallisport challenge and even SOFII and NOLFII. In these games, if I enebled the touted 4xAA and 8xAF everyone talks so highly about, the games I meantioned above float between 40 and 50 fps. Not what I would call blinding speed. Things get super smooth over 60fps.

Option #3. If you are completely strapped get an 8500-128 card. It still performs admirably and only slightly slower than a G4Ti4200 and should be found for like $85 US.

Charles.

GlowStick
05-13-03, 02:22 PM
Yes, if your system is getting considerd slow, and you cant justfy spending 399$ on a new video card, preteding you can play a game with AA and AF enabled is a joke, id just go with a raw preformacne card, because chances are you dont have a good enough monitor to fully enjoy it : O

digitalwanderer
05-13-03, 02:27 PM
Check out some of the deals you can find on used GF4 TIs lately on the "for sale/trade" boards around the net...they're practically giving 'em away!

schuey74
05-13-03, 03:00 PM
Just speculation.....but I remember seeing GFX5600 benchmarks w/ the 44.03s in one of yesterday's reviews and they were quite impressive. I wish I could remember where!!! These cards can be found online for around $170. If you're in no big rush you may want to wait until you see some benchmarks w/ the Det 50.xxs. And these cards could be dirt cheap after the NV36 comes out (?)& the 5600 takes over as the budget cards.

cvearl
05-13-03, 03:09 PM
Originally posted by schuey74
Just speculation.....but I remember seeing GFX5600 benchmarks w/ the 44.03s in one of yesterday's reviews and they were quite impressive. I wish I could remember where!!! These cards can be found online for around $170. If you're in no big rush you may want to wait until you see some benchmarks w/ the Det 50.xxs. And these cards could be dirt cheap after the NV36 comes out (?)& the 5600 takes over as the budget cards.

With or without new dets, the 9500 Pro is a faster card. Hell in RAW performance, the G4Ti4200 is faster than a 5600. There is NO WAY on this planet that a 5600 Ultra can challenge a 9500 Pro. It just does not have the archetectual balls to do it. Not worth it. If the 5600 Ultra dropped to under $150 it might be an option.

However, if I had to choose between it and a 9600 Pro, I might agree with you. One thing is for sure though. If you are thinking 9500 Pro, get it fast. They are no longer in production and store inventory is all that is left in the channel.

Charles.

GlowStick
05-13-03, 03:37 PM
also, if you go to a store, and hide it, then come back a while after they are all gone, you can try to talk them donw in price ; D

Dazz
05-13-03, 03:40 PM
137 will get you a Radeon 9500Pro, most TI4200 8x cards are around 110. http://www.komplett.co.uk/k/ki.asp?action=info&p=29009&t=&l=&AvdID=1&CatID=&GrpID=&s=sr

schuey74
05-13-03, 03:49 PM
It was both the Anandtech and HardOCP Doom 3 comparisons that had the FX5600 w/ the new drivers. HardOCP only had the ATI 9600, but Anandtech also had the 9500. If you take these benchmarks as impartial (I know many people don't!), then the 5600 is significantly faster than both of ATI's offerings. Like I said, I would wait a few weeks to see the 50.xxs benchmarks in a full review. It's only (supposingly) a few weeks away.

What's the 5600 Ultra going for now? I see gainward's 128 meg ultra going for $166 - $175 at pricewatch. Is it a real "Ultra" or just gainward's marketing again!

MrNasty
05-13-03, 03:50 PM
I have a 9500 non pro.

It does not suck :mad:

bofh1971
05-13-03, 04:02 PM
Thats great guys.
The OEM stuff I often buy usually has lower grade memory on board.

Prices are however already dropping on existing FX cards, most likely due to the bad publicity and quick replacement.

It seems that I have to take care when choosing an ATI Rad. as its important to get the pro version.

Thanks for the advice.

By the way in response to my monitor, its just a 15" TFT :)

1024x768 is fine for me at the moment, and with AA performing very well at this res. I get the effect of a much higher res.

Looks like I might try and actually save up for a mid range card...
I will only speed up any purchase if my GF4 MX struggles with Half Life 2 or Doom 3.......

saturnotaku
05-13-03, 04:05 PM
Originally posted by bofh1971
I will only speed up any purchase if my GF4 MX struggles with Half Life 2 or Doom 3.......

Then you may want to start saving those pence right now because that glorified GeForce2 you're running will get killed with the games that are on the horizon. :)

gordon151
05-13-03, 04:10 PM
Originally posted by schuey74
It was both the Anandtech and HardOCP Doom 3 comparisons that had the FX5600 w/ the new drivers. HardOCP only had the ATI 9600, but Anandtech also had the 9500. If you take these benchmarks as impartial (I know many people don't!), then the 5600 is significantly faster than both of ATI's offerings. Like I said, I would wait a few weeks to see the 50.xxs benchmarks in a full review. It's only (supposingly) a few weeks away.

What's the 5600 Ultra going for now? I see gainward's 128 meg ultra going for $166 - $175 at pricewatch. Is it a real "Ultra" or just gainward's marketing again!

I pretty much figured some would come to this assumption after the Doom III benchmarks withstanding the multitude of current benchmarks that show the 9500/9600 Pro as superior products to the current 5600 Ultra. Both ATI products also offer superior performance scaling with overclocking (9500 Pro goes as high as 400Mhz while 9600 Pro overclocks to well over 500Mhz on stock cooling), but if you are strapped for cash I'd rather go with a 4200. That's my opinion though.

digitalwanderer
05-13-03, 04:10 PM
Originally posted by saturnotaku
Then you may want to start saving those pence right now because that glorified GeForce2 you're running will get killed with the games that are on the horizon. :)

TOTAL agreement!

I just upgraded me long-o-tooth GF3 for a GF4 ti for cheap and have seen a VERY noticable improvement in the newer games! :)

hithere
05-13-03, 04:16 PM
Originally posted by MrNasty
I have a 9500 non pro.

It does not suck :mad:

I have one as well...but it's got the extra 4 pipes unlocked and is running like a champ as a 9700.

Being as this is almost certainly not an option, I would agree with the above and go with either a Ti4200 or a 9500 pro. Actually, with Doom 3 in proximity, I'd lean more towards the 9500.

Shadowx
05-13-03, 04:55 PM
the good thing about all this new cards is that oem and budjet pc will be dx9 making developers produce dx9 softwear faster than they did with dx8(i hope), and longhorn in 2005 will have a 3d base to launch there new 3d interface ops

hithere
05-13-03, 05:53 PM
Originally posted by Shadowx
and longhorn in 2005 will have a 3d base to launch there new 3d interface ops

You sound all military.:D

digitalwanderer
05-13-03, 05:58 PM
Originally posted by hithere
You sound all military.:D

Scarily, so does Longhorn... :eek2:

Nv40
05-13-03, 07:54 PM
best budget ever made is by far the Geforce4 ti200.. 64megs.
if you dont mind about directx9 ,you will not see games
requiring *only* that this year..anyway

you will find those cards in www.pricewatch.com
as LOW as $90. if you overclock the card you will get
the performance closer to a Geforce4 ti4600 and even
better performance than a Radeon9500pro without using AA/AF.

UT2003
http://www.tomshardware.com/graphic/20030416/radeon_9600-07.html#unreal_tournament_2003

Splinter Cell
http://www.tomshardware.com/graphic/20030416/radeon_9600-18.html

and those games are Two of most
heavier for video cards ,other games will play even better.
for the only reason to pay more $$ for a RADeon9500pro
is ,if you want better speeds with AA/AF.

IMO.. the only thing similar for this price/performance deal ,
will be to get a Radeon9700pro for $199

but my suggestion is to not wait too much ,
because the Geforce4 lineup is discontinued.

Shadowx
05-13-03, 07:59 PM
it does sound militarily but longhorn copiright **** will have me away from it until everyone knows whats really happening in there.:eek2:

CaptNKILL
05-13-03, 08:07 PM
Ive got a GF4 Ti 4400 overclocked to almost 4600 clocks and it seems to be holding up really good. My next video upgrade wont happen until I get lots of $$$, but the GF FX 5900 is DEFFINITLY the kind of boost ive been looking for. I love my 8x anisotropic filtering (AA is ok too, but I dont use it unless im playing a really old game), but I also like my frame-rates ABOVE 40fps all the time... right now, thats not possible with newer games and my card.

I'll probably consider a purchase during the summer if I have a good paying summer job (at least 6 bucks an hour, 4 hours a day, 5 days a week.... ~$120 a week could get me a new vid card in no time). If the 5900 is "cheap" enough, I'll grab one of those. If its not, I'll get the mid-range version of the NV35 ($200-$300).

Whatever I end up getting, I just need it for Deus Ex 2, STALKER, Half-Life 2 etc... so Im not in any BIG hurry to get it.

Gator
05-13-03, 08:10 PM
GF4TI4200 makes the most sense because it can play any game available as of now very well, and it's CHEAP. However be warned, DoomIII will likely change everything you know about game requirements, but you'd need decent CPU & memory to match anyways. I dunno, if your looking for a good deal GF4TI4200 makes the most sense, followed by the R9500Pro

and yes ATI drivers are better than they used to be I hear, but you need hardware compatibility to match so do some research before you buy. No known compatibility issues with GF4TI though.

dpollard55
05-14-03, 06:04 AM
Ti 4200 is probably the best budget card right now.... unless you've only got a PCI slot then I would say an FX 5200 from PNY.

zakelwe
05-14-03, 07:03 AM
I just bought a GF4 4800SE which is actually the x8 AGP version of the old GF4 4400 and it is quite nice. Standard clocks are 275MHz core and 550MHz memory but I bought the Gainward with 3.3ns memory.

Result :- 330MHz core on original heatsink/fan without being at max and the memory does 680MHz.

Enough for 16700 in 3dmark2001 and 2300+ in 3dmark03. Though Futuremark have it down as a 4200ti for some reason.

Regards

Andy