Graphics cards

[Dangerous55]

Ahhh, I just ordered my new comp, here is some stuff:

AMD 3200+ Processor
512 DDR Ram
80 Gig Hard Drive
Geforce 5500 256mb
...and of course other stuff.

Only $1100.

I just hope the internet connection at Alvernia doesnt suck!

[navci]

My 300 PC came with a Radeon 9800, which bro ripped out and gave me this nVidia GeForce 5600.

Damn him.

[Para]

On 2004-08-19 12:15, Aredhel wrote:
Just make sure that you have a good processor as well. Don't go out and buy an X800 Radeon Platinum edition for your PIII 500Ghz machine - the card is practically faster than your processor!

[sarcasm]PIII 500GHZ!!! HOLY SHIT!!![/sarcasm]

My 300 PC came with a Radeon 9800, which bro ripped out and gave me this nVidia GeForce 5600.

Damn him.

Thats not a bad video card atleast but not as good as the 9800 lol.

Its better than my gf2 >_>

<TABLE
BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85><TR><TD><font size=-1>Code:</font><HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT
SIZE=-1><PRE>Or you can go Nvidea. Get a GeForce 5600 with Hydro-cooling system. 400mhz and 1100mhz clock speed. </PRE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE><!-
- BBCode End -->
lol 5600 was nicknamed the dustbuster for its loud fan

as for which card is better

if you are interested in Anti aliasing, get a raedon because benchmarks are better overall for ATI cards in the Anti Aliasing department.

If you don't care about Anti Aliasing, a nvidia card would float your boat because they're faster than ATI cards in that department.

Of course you could wait abit longer, with the new generation cards out, old generation cards are dropping in price so becareful when you buy your card.

[HUnewearl_Meira]

On 2004-08-19 15:34, Nites wrote:
(something with a CODE tag)

Note: Code tag = screwed up forum tables.

[Sir_Laguna]

I looked up some benchmarks on Tom's Hardware Guide and found a great article right here. The article is kind of dated (It was written in Dec. 2003) but it's good for the sake of comparing the two cards you listed.

If the extra TV features don't matter, you should go with the 9800 Pro. In the benchmarks I looked at inside the article I linked to, there's a pretty good gap in frames/second between the 9800 Pro and the 9800 SE in some of the benchmarks, sometimes as large as 30-40 fps.

I've owned a Radeon 9700 Pro (9800's older brother) for nearly two years now, and it's served me extremely well in my Athlon XP 2100+ machine. It runs Doom 3 very nicely on High graphics settings at 1024x768. Given that the 9800 Pro is just a step up from my card, I'm sure you'll be very satisfied should you decide to go with it.

Meira-- you are right, there is a 256 MB version of both the 9800 Pro and XT, and there is also a 128 MB version of the Pro. The extra dough you have to cough up for 256 MB of VRAM seems to hover around $60 USD.

[klepto]

either card should give you a solid 60 fps in doom3/pso. 9800 pro gives you constant 100 in CS, about a constant 95 in CZ. With the arrival of CS:S, I would expect it to give a little less fps.

I've loved my 9800 pro and never had any sort of FPS problems no matter what game I play.

Keep v-sync on, just set your refresh rate to 75 or higher.

[Rainbowlemon]

Thanks guys, the 9800pro it is! ^_^;

[BrokenHope]

I can't believe no one has mentioned the fact that the SE version of the 9800 pro only has 4 pipelines, which makes it about as powerfull as a 9600 pro, for pure power the 9800 pro will be the best bet unless you don't mind a slower card but with the capture capablity