Age Old Question

PfhorRunner

Which graphics card to buy?
I'm trying to go cheap, but still be able to game well...

System specs are:
AMD 64 3200+ on an nForce3 mobo (AGP 8X)
1 gig of dualchannel RAM
350W power supply

but i have a geforceFX5600 right now, and sadly it's gonna have to go if I wanna even think about playing BF2 on a decent graphics setting.

I was thinking my budget for a new card would be around $250.
nVidia cards are expensive and I don't really know if they're that much better than ATi... I was looking at a Radeon X800PRO at newegg for about $260 and everyone said it was easy to access the pipelines to make it an XT. Yet, i'm still reluctant because i've always had nVidia and I really don't want to come out of my shell and have a bad experience.

Help?

sonic

6600gt will run everything you'll need for about $170

I have one, and I run doom3 on ultra quality at 1154x864 nice and smooth, but I also have a 64 bit AMD running at 2.561 ghz.

Since you have AGP, you can get the regular 6800 for I think around 180 bucks, and you can unlock from 12 to 16 pipelines, and from 5 to 6 shaders, push a little OC and have yourself a 6800ultra.

Also I forgot to mention that ATI is better at DX8 stuff, but the Shader Model 3 on Nvidia's new cards is great for DX9.

PfhorRunner

Alright, I also forgot to mention that I'm planning on using RivaTuner on my nVidia card if i get one...

All I was saying is that the clock speeds of the ATi X800 were pretty damn high compared the the nVidia. a 6800ultra for 180? not bad saying newegg has 6800ultras for around 300... But, are there a lot of artifacts and other issues with not being able to unlock those 4 pipelines and extra vertex shader?

KDR_11k

42. Oh, I thought you were talking about that question...

Ati is a nightmare if you're doing anything other than gaming on Windows. Linux will cause you headaches and 3d applications will often suffer from Ati's drivers. I think the general rule is that when you're a modeler or a Linux user, it's always NVidia.

Clock speeds are irrelevant except if you're talking about otherwise identical processors. GPUs are too different to be judged on MHz, the only thing the clock frequency indicates nowadays is power usage.

If the price Sonic mentions is true, the 6800 is a good bet. It runs Battlefield 2 at max details on your config, if you get a 256MB one, that is (I made the mistake of getting a 128MB one, it can only go up to med detail on textures but everything else max).

Flashing won't always work since those dormant units aren't guranteed to be functional but as long as trying can't damage the card...

PfhorRunner

Well thanks a bunch Sonic and KDR. Helped a lot, i think i'm going to go with a 256mb 6800 ... yay, i'm all excited now.

Edit: now looking at it... I can't seem to find a 256mb 6800 on newegg that is also AGP... . shucks. only a 6800GT and that one is about $300...

ElysiumGX

since this thread is becoming a broken record once again with all the "ati is crap, drivers suck" rants, I'll repeat myself as well. if you're strict about what shaders can accomplish, then you already know what brand you want.

ati is fine. i've used the 8500, 9600, and 9800 Pro. i model, i game. omega. that is all. who wants pie?

PfhorRunner

Pie is tasty...
My friend wanted to sell me his 9800pro for $50... I said i'd think about it, because I have this money sitting around, and if i can get a better graphics card that'll last me a bit longer than that (reviews i've read are saying that the games I want to play aren't at the detail level I want) I'd go for the more expensive... my brother has an ATi card, and it runs everything fairly smooth... I dunno, I think i'm just an nVidia person.

Weiser_Cain

Cheap+Game>well=ATI

KDR_11k

No instance for Bool->Ord->Bool arising from the use of = in
Cheap+Game>well=ATI.
Probable cause: Operator > is applied incorrectly

In other words, what the fuck are you trying to say? Cheap and game is better than Ati, even if it's well?

aesir

owned...

sonic

Like KDR said, there are many ATI driver issues, although they aren't that bad anymore. Really the ShaderModel 3.0 in Nvidia's latest cards will be the key to the future. In another comp I have a regular 6600 OCd a bit, and it rapes the living hell in Fear, Doom3, etc out of a 9800pro that I had, and it was 30 dollars less (a $99 graphics card!). And I could run BF2 at full settings on that 6600 too.

Check out this eVGA card : http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16814130202

It's only 128mb, but I have yet to find that to be an issue. I play Doom3 on ultra mode, smooth as hell on a regular 6600 with 128mb.

ElysiumGX

Why didn't you overclock the 9800Pro to XT speeds like so many do? Easy with an Arctic Cooler.

I have never had driver issues. Are you hardcore gamer types actually using Catalyst? I had more driver problems with Nvidia. It's really a never ending debate, but I hate reading from so many calling ATI crap because of one small set back it may have compared to the competition at release time. And the Nvidia logo at the beginning of games that play fine for me is starting to piss me off. Let's just add "XSI, the way it's meant to be animated" as 3DSmax's splash screen. If you have a specific card, it's most likely due to the fact it has just what you're looking for.

http://www.megagames.com/news/html/hardware/atir520withshader30.shtml

CheapAlert

yeah, wtf is nvidia up to removing refresh rate override controls in newer drivers

Keg

just upgraded yesterday to a bfg 6600gt and am quite happy with it. tis a good mid range card that'll suffice for me until I upgrade my machine in a year or so.

PfhorRunner

Well, like i said, i'm kinda in the middle so don't give me flak for not being "yay! ATi" or "yay! nVidia". Like i said, i'm just used to the nVidia way, and I don't want to really test new waters if i have the safe option to not be disappointed .

So! with that said, Sonic I really like that 6800. It looks like a good buy, all i'm saying is that 256mb might be a little tiny bit better?

OK so the opinion im looking for now is
Geforce 6800 with 128mb for $190 that *might* be able to access 4 more pipelines and a vertex shader.
OR
Geforce 6800GT with 256mb for roughly $300 that *might* be able to access 4 more pipelines and a vertex shader...

?

KDR_11k

I've found that memory is the first limit I hit with any graphics card which is why I'd have preferred a 256MB card... It won't increase your FPS until you hit the memory limit (going over the memory limit will usually result in framerates of 1-2 fps, not a gradual getting slower but a sudden jump from e.g. 60fps to 1). Since RAM upgrades on the card aren't possible you can only replace the card to get rid of that problem. Back when I bought my 6800, the GT was just 50 Euros more but no store had it in stock.

BTW, 3dMark 2003 seems to hit the memory limit for me most of the time.

Joshua Stubbles

I'm running the 6800GT right now, though the card is a bit expensive still. It runs everything smooth as hell, and not a single issue with any games. The GT card cannot be unlocked though, only the bast 6800 can.

PfhorRunner

Well. I'm still debating then...
Will the plain 6800 that i could possibly unlock, be better (if unlocked) than the 6800GT? If so, should I risk it?

KDR_11k

I doubt it, the difference between a 6800, a GT and an Ultra isn't that big in actual use.

PfhorRunner

Thanks for the help... again.

I also forgot to mention that i probably won't be running anything more than 1024X786 mainly because my monitor doesn't support anything above it . so that might be a plus.

So what you're saying KDR is that the difference between the 6800 and the 6800GT isn't worth roughly $100?

KDR_11k

The stats on Tom's Hardware suggest the 6800Gt is a 6800 Ultra with lower clock frequencies but samepipe count, etc.

The charts also show that the 6800 takes a bigger hit from higher resolutions and more AA/AF but at 1024x768 it's no more than 20% (compared to the GT) even with full AA/AF. It can go up to 50% for full AA/AF and 1600x1200 but I never run any game at those specs and I don't see why you'd use AA at 1600x1200...
At 1024x768 and no AA/AF the speeds of the 6800, GT and Ultra are very close together.

But see for yourself if you'd pay 100$ for that difference.

PfhorRunner

Oh wow! alright thanks that just solved everything...
awesome!

Alright, so I think i'm gonna go with the 6800GT, i know it's a bit more than I wanted to spend, but with this rig i think it'll last me longer than the 6800... thanks!

though, i'm still not gonna buy quite yet, i'm gonna take a look at the X800XL... seems $100+ cheaper than the 6800 ultra and does better in some games...

KDR_11k

The XL is as fast as the GT or Ultra in less shader heavy games but goes down to 6800 level when you take something with lots of normalmaps (Doom 3, Riddick). So its raw performance is better but it has lower shader performance.

And as I said before, you'll get in trouble if you try to use Linux with Ati.