Gotta sell my new vid card

by **shockwave203** » Thu Feb 26, 2004 9:22 pm

Originally posted by Crypt
Mr. Expert Video Card Man..what will be required to run Battlefield Vietnam, i have a 2.8Intel with 800FSB and 512DDR Memory.

lol

well, let me look into my magic crystal ball.......

ah I got nothing

I don't know. BFV is DX9, so the video card has to be 'up there' somewhat. Ever play Tombraider the angel of darkness? it's DX9

You know what you should do? Download the demo 'far cry' which is dx9. that may give you some idea of how well your system will be able to handle BFV.

All games handle differently though. we'll just have to wait and see. I'd assume that nothing less than a 9600XT would be able to play the game above 1024 X 768 with high detail and no AA/AF, but I have no clue.

Tombraider allows you to set up which effects in the game you want, so if you don't have the best card in the world, you could turn off Pixel shaders 2.0 (DX9 shaders) and it boosts the speed of the game A LOT. Maybe BFV will have that option, so slower cards will be able to run it with some speed. but that may have been an optomization for Nvidia, because it was an "nvidia the way it's meant to be played game", and ofcourse TRAOD being DX9 would have played horrible on an Nvidia card were it not for the ability to turn off PS2.0

by Conscious* » Thu Feb 26, 2004 9:34 pm

Hmm i have an Nvidia 4200ti will i be able to play the game at all with this card?

by **shockwave203** » Thu Feb 26, 2004 9:37 pm

Originally posted by Crypt
Hmm i have an Nvidia 4200ti will i be able to play the game at all with this card?

well, with almost EVERYTHING set to low...then maybe, but I honestly have no clue. give farcry a whirl and tell us how it played :cool:

but why in the world do you have such an old card when the rest of your system is so top notch?

you have a really good computer, you mine as well have a good video card, otherwise all the money you spent on a 2.8 processor with 800 mhz FSB was pretty much not worth it:(

you could always just give it to me instead

that would be good

by **Bullhead** » Fri Feb 27, 2004 1:15 am

Good God. I start playing BF around 7pm, (this thread did not exist then), quit around 11 and go play Dungeon Siege for awhile to vent....and then quit it around 1 to find this monster growing....hehe

Shock, good work on the defense of the truth!

With possibly the exception of the VERY BEST card nvidia has to offer, ATI spanks nvidia in performance at every category, save for maybe the budget level cards (geforcemx/ati9000). For every benchmark you can find showing an nvidia card JUST EDGING out an ATI card, I can find you one, running the same tests, with a 9700pro EDGING out that same flagship nvidia card.

Nvidia uses DirectX 8.1 HARDWARE, and some VERY clever/efficient code (drivers) to run dx9 (alot of conversion going on). ATI, on the other hand, runs TRUE dx9 class hardware, with damn good drivers themselves. On older games, or games based on those older engines (i.e. ANYTHING based on the quakeIII/unreal engines), the two brands of cards will perform very similar (at mid to high level cards) because at that point the cards are not hitting their max perf. (is there really a difference between 180FPS and 250FPS? that the eye/brain can see/tell ? NO!). Grab a newer, dx9 based title (Halo, DeusEx IW, etc) and ATI will almost always spank the nvidia cards, and if it does lose, it's usually by a very small margin, and often is a driver issue (new game, still working out bugs, etc). 3Dmark (2001, 2001se, or 2003) and Aquamark DON'T MATTER, THEY ARE TO EASY TO MANIPULATE. Half-Life 2 has been shown to run better on ati cards, and required NO OPTIMIZING/SPECIAL CODING to run so, whereas the nvidia cards required extra work on valve's part to get the game to even run remotely right. Yes, it was desgined on ATI cards, but the reason is simple: ATI WAS THE ONLY MANUFACTURER OF DX9 CARDS AT THE TIME THEY STARTED DEVELOPMENT (ATI 9700Pro to be exact). Doom3, on the other hand, is being built on nvidia cards, which is sad, but I'm sure they had their reasons (probably b/c at time of intial development, nvidia had a stranglehold on the vid card market).

but I digress (and so has everyone else)...... My poor man, that sucks that you're selling computer parts, but at least it's for an honorable cause. I honestly don't think you could sell it for much over $190, maybe $200 IF it included shipping, since you can buy 'em brand new for almost $200 if you shop around. Sell your TV first or something

****EDIT****
DOLT! just noticed what forum this was in....no wonder I never saw it.....

by **ticks-&-leeches** » Fri Feb 27, 2004 5:10 am

bang for the buck in terms of card always go with ati i use the 9600 xt and love it the card has givin me solid 125 fps with my old rig 1.3 amd with gig of 266 ddr now that i upgraded to ams 64 3200 chip 333 solid fps max detail highest rez , ive had it to 600 fps but ci is problem capped @ 333, you also got a free version of hl2 whenever it comes out (ill prolly have a new machine and ati card by then but oh well) with the 9600xt card for 189 bucks the choice wasnt to hard 4 me

by **Major SONAR** » Fri Feb 27, 2004 2:12 pm

Shockwave:

While I agree that ATI produces better cards than Nvidia currently, I have to wonder (just a bit) about your price/performance list. I'm not saying it's not accurate, but I am saying it doesn't tell the whole story.

Your list is probably fairly accurate, but to have a complete comparrison, you would need to compare diffrent resolutions, different programs, different settings (AA on/off), etc. You may have done this already, or merely summarized someone else's data.

IMHO it's best to acknowledge where your information comes from and if you can provide a link so we can all read it for ourselves. (I apologize if this sounds like criticism.) It is only a suggestion.

I personally have an Nvidia GF4 4200Ti. It's good card, but getting a bit long in the tooth. I agree with you 100% that ATI makes a better card than Nvidia, and that's why my next card will be the ATI 9800 Pro A-I-W.

So... I'm not arguing with you, merely pointing out that your price/performance list only tells half the story.

One other thing, from what I have read the extra 128 Mb RAM on the video cards does NOT increase performance. In the future it certainly may help, but currently it has no purpose other than bragging rights. Personally, I would save my $100 and put it towards someother upgrade for my computer... but that's just me.

by **shockwave203** » Fri Feb 27, 2004 2:38 pm

ya sonar it wasn't my list. someone a few weeks ago made it, i just copied it to a text file and saved it on my pc. I can't remember if it was on a messageboard or in an article i read on a website.

It's true that there are lots of variables when testing a cards speed. for example, if you had AA/AF on all the time, all the ATI cards would be near the top. Turning AA off gives some Nvidia cards the edge when it comes to speed.

and about the 256 MB cards, like I said before, you'll notice a difference in how smooth games play if you crank up your resolution and bump up AA/AF to max. You try playing a game like 'farcry' or any of the other newer games that are out, at 1600 X 1200 with AA cranked, you'll get a big performance hit if you aren't running 256 MB. but, almost no one does that (because it's unecessary) so 128 is just fine.

by **[U.S.C] Amaryl** » Fri Feb 27, 2004 3:27 pm

IMO I will buy a new card when doom 3 or hl2 comes out, sice my Geforce Ti 4200 is callng a vacation already

I hope ATI cards can slowed their prices when these games comes out ebough to be bought with no need of selling my TV or something worse.

by **LordShard** » Sat Feb 28, 2004 3:58 am

SO what your saying is essentially Nvidia is using a wrapper instead of true DX9 hardware? o_O

O well I guess it's like the PC clones when IBM was making them. they had to duplicate their flaws to sell because all the software was optmized to take advantage of the flaws.

BTW
my computer=
motherboard=SY-KT600 Dragon Ultra Platnium
CPU=1.6Ghz AMD Duron (cheap and effective, plan on upgrading to AMD XP 3200)
RAM=512MB DDR400 (PC3200) ram (plan on upgrading to 1.5GB PC3200)
Video card=PCI MMX400 Geforce2 64MB <<<MAJOR BOTTLENECK. Also think it is the reason my sound is whack in windows and certain apps since my res is maxxed because of the way the KT500 chipset works)
Sound card=SB live 5.1 > cheap sony headphones (AAAAAAH MY EARS! MY EARS! I JUST GOT GIPED WITH A GRENADE AND IT DIDN'T CUT OUT IN TIME)

http://www.soyousa.com/products/proddesc.php?id=256 <<<my motherboard

by **Kuga** » Sat Feb 28, 2004 4:39 pm

Thanks for the input shockwave (page one). Currently my board can handle 4x AGP, I know the 9800 pro 128mb uses up to 8x, I understand 8x is better than 4x, obviously. I would upgrade my mobo to an ASUS model I was looking at, forget the exact model #. I also read somewhere that a few hardware websites tested graphics cards and program, none to date, including HL2 use over 110 mb of ram of a vid card, which is why I refuse to buy anything over 128mb. If this was your computer and it works fine now, as in quake and UT testing I get over 100 fps, would you upgrade to the new card or wait for the mobo + card? I was considering changing processors, my current one had the fan burn out and I was lucky it did not show any visible processor damage. I do feel that there was some due to problems with system lag, even though nothing may be running, is showing. I have an AMD XP+ 2100, not OCd, was going to go for a barton 2200+ if I got the new mobo as well. Yup, this is now a tech thread

Anyways, I know what new processors are out and can guess what will be coming out in the next year, so im mostly watching prices atm. I just don't know if its worth doing it now or waiting a year and doing it then when the parts will be even cheaper.
/Long Post

by **shockwave203** » Sat Feb 28, 2004 4:53 pm

ya nvidia basically is just covering up the crappy DX9 support they have, making things run in DirectX8, and using different codepaths so the card doenst render the best images, making it's speed increase. That's why some people think HL2 has been delayed so long, because Valve had to spend a lot of extra time making different codepaths for Nvidia users so the game wouldn run at an acceptable level.

and kuga, dont upgrade your mobo just because you want AGP 8X. there is absolutely no difference in performance between 4X and 8X, it's just a marketing gimmick.

by **Kuga** » Sat Feb 28, 2004 6:25 pm

Thanks, im just gonna replace my century old soundcard instead with some new speakers

by **LordShard** » Sat Feb 28, 2004 11:54 pm

Originally posted by shockwave203
ya nvidia basically is just covering up the crappy DX9 support they have, making things run in DirectX8, and using different codepaths so the card doenst render the best images, making it's speed increase. That's why some people think HL2 has been delayed so long, because Valve had to spend a lot of extra time making different codepaths for Nvidia users so the game wouldn run at an acceptable level.

and kuga, dont upgrade your mobo just because you want AGP 8X. there is absolutely no difference in performance between 4X and 8X, it's just a marketing gimmick.

There is a differnce between 4x and 8x but not enough to worry about. Only time it would matter is when your video card has to access system memory for textures, or if it doesn't have enough on board video ram to handle such things (happens on 64MB and 32MB card allot). but don't upgrade your mobo for 8x. The differnce is mimimal if even noticable to all.

Gotta sell my new vid card

Who is online