Okay, I've got a mate who's just bought the PC version of Pro Evo Soccer 3. It needs a Direct X 8.1 graphics card. Why, I don't know, since it's a conversion of a PS2 game and the graphics really arne't that good.
Anyway, he doesn't have one. He has a fairly fast computer (1800+ I think), and 512mb of memory, so that's not a problem.
He really doesn't want to spend a lot of money. Less than �50. So as far as I can see, he's limited to about two choices. A 128mb 9200 Radeon, or a 64mb GeForce FX5200.
The question is, which one to get? I know the Radeon isn't DirectX 9 compatible, whereas the GeForce is. But there's no actual games that use DirectX 9 at the moment, and Half Life 2 will apparently run the lower end GeForce FX cards in DX 8.1 mode, rather than DX 9 mode.
So, really, is it worth it? Is the GeForce noticably faster than the 9200 at running DX 8.1 (and lower) games? Does the memory on the card make much of a difference? If I could find a 5200 with 128mb, would that make a difference? Does the 5200 have the stupid great big noisy fan that the big FX cards have?
And no suggestions that involve spending �100. He really won't go for that. He's not a mad game power user. He just wants Pro Evo 3, and maybe Age of Mythology.
Posted by Alshrim Dax (Member # 258) on :
I personally have a GeForce4 MSI 4200 - it's a 128MB card - i believe the 4100 is the 64mb card... it is around $150CAN - which is what?? around - a 65pounds'ish I would go for the one that is forward compatible myself...
But the radeons are rated #1 for FPS baseline tests...
But for the bang for the buck - GeForce is a great product and very comperable...
Posted by Alshrim Dax (Member # 258) on :
Further to my post... my card is around 65 pounds.. but the 64 mb cards are considerably less.. I just don't recall how much...
Posted by Alshrim Dax (Member # 258) on :
Ok.. maybe i was out to lunch -- according a british site - they are 116 pounds...
There could be better deals out there - who knows.. I don't think i spent any more than $160CAN on mine - but i GOT A GREAT deal on a packaged computer.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
"So, really, is it worth it?"
No.
"Is the GeForce noticably faster than the 9200 at running DX 8.1 (and lower) games?"
No.
"Does the memory on the card make much of a difference?"
No.
"If I could find a 5200 with 128mb, would that make a difference?"
No.
"Does the 5200 have the stupid great big noisy fan that the big FX cards have?"
No.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
Well, read for yourself. It looks like the 5200 is the better performer on today's games, the 9200 seems a bit flakey. However, I would avoid the Half Life 2 like a plague on any Nivida card less than a 5600, if even that really, even with DX8.1. http://www.tomshardware.com/graphic/20030311/index.html However, how much does an oem Sapphire (i.e. third party) 9600 cost over there?
Posted by Alshrim Dax (Member # 258) on :
I've found the GeForce a great performer for sure...
Cartman - my Ti4200 has a fan - but it's super quiet Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Thanks for being helpful, but, er, what part of "he won't spend more than �50 on a card" weren't you getting? And where the hell was this place that was selling a GeForce 4 for �116!
Okay, going by Dabs, who are pretty much the cheapest and most reliable, the non-brand cards are...
Radeon 9200SE 64MB DDR AGP DVI - �29.99 Radeon 9200SE 128MB DDR AGP VO - �40.00 GeForceFX 5200 128MB DDR AGP RP DVI VO - �45.00 GF FX5600XT 128MB DDR AGP DVI - �70.00 Radeon 9600SE 64MB DDR AGP DVI VO - �70.50
So, as you can see, the halfway decent DirectX 9 cards are out of his budget.
Cartman seems to be recommending the Athalon. Or possibly saying that they're just about the same. I'm not sure.
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
Mucus: "However, I would avoid the Half Life 2 like a plague on any Nivida card less than a 5600". Provided there'll be any HL2. At all. U know, they stole teh code!!! Now they cant find it!!
Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
Err. Right.
Anyways, back on topic. Then despite my history as a fan of ATI cards, I'd recommend the 5200. Unless you can wait for a Christmas special on the 9600 to drop into your budget, then the lower-end ATI cards don't appear to have the performance needed. I wouldn't worry about the fan noise of the 5200 or looking for memory, these are a far cry from the 5900s.
Posted by Saltah'na (Member # 33) on :
Sapphire Radeon 9800 128 MB, for $290. That's Canadian dollars.
There's also a MSI Geforce FX 5900 128 MB for $370.
Posted by Balaam Xumucane (Member # 419) on :
What means 'budget'?
Posted by Saltah'na (Member # 33) on :
Well, if you mean budget, there is a Forsa (no name brand) GeForce FX 5600 selling for $130.
Given nVidia's recent numbers, I wouldn't touch that card with a fifteen foot pole.
Posted by Alshrim Dax (Member # 258) on :
Psy: that's what i said... for the money - i wouldn't go for the card I have - but the one below it - where you would probly get into the 50pound to 70 pound range !!
But that the card i have is great - and there are lower-end ones with less memory etc.. that will be more in the price-range.. like this one:
Seriously, I love you all, and appreciate the suggestions, but...
quote:Originally posted by Saltah'na: Sapphire Radeon 9800 128 MB, for $290. That's Canadian dollars.
There's also a MSI Geforce FX 5900 128 MB for $370.
quote:Originally posted by Saltah'na: Well, if you mean budget, there is a Forsa (no name brand) GeForce FX 5600 selling for $130.
... what part of 'what part of "he won't spend more than �50 on a card" weren't you getting?' weren't you getting?
So, one final time, and remembering that this isn't for me, as I'd have got the 9600, assuming that his person absolutly can not and will not spend more than FIFTY BRITISH POUNDS, would you recommend the 9200, or the FX5200? Or does it not matter?
Posted by Saltah'na (Member # 33) on :
The prices I mentioned earlier are in Canadian, in which $130 Canadian => 57.70 British pounds at last glance.
As for the 9200 and the 5200, I wouldn't touch them at all. They are tweaked down versions of their predecessors, the 9200 from the 9000 and the 5200 from the GeForce4 MX440. Don't bother with them, or they will become outdated faster than Beckham can bend a soc... err... football.
Besides, the first post was meant as sarcasm.
You're welcome.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Wow. Candian dollars really aren't worth, well, much at all. Still, thanks for the help.
Is the 5200 really a GeForce4 MX? Because those aren't even DX 8.1 cards, are they? Is the 5200 a DX 9 card then or not?
I will try and get him to spend more, but it's not too likely. He can't even really afford the �40, but he wants to play Pro Evo more than, er, live. Yeah, I know those two cards will become outdated, but he's still soldering on with a TNT2, so any step up will be fairly big.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
Just read the first link, it has benchmarks of everything from the low end Geforce 4 MX to an ATI 9800. No, the 9200 is not a DX 9.0 part (its a tweaked version of the 9000, which builds on the 8500), while the 5200 is (even though its just a redesign of the Geforce 4 MX). But it hardly matters as you'll see from the link.
If you have to buy from this price bracket, get the 9200.
Posted by Saltah'na (Member # 33) on :
Keywords TWEAKED DOWN. One thing is for sure, the benchmarks for the 9000 are better than the GeForce MX440.
If you could track down a Radeon 9000 Pro, get it. It would probably cost less than $100 Canadian, which would probably be less than your 50 Pounds.
Still, if you can find a Forsa GeForce FX 5600, you might as well get it for its price and performance. I wouldn't.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)