OT: Video Cards

My trusty 2 year old 32 meg DDR Radeon just isn't cutting it anymore - it still can do 1024x768x32 without breaking a sweat, but there is not enough memory for texture heavy games, and not enough horsepower for FSAA. In a flyer for a local store they are advertising a 128 meg GeForce 3 Ti200 for $160 (US). Probably going to head down there tomorrow to make sure that isn't a typo. Assuming it's legit, what would I be losing by getting this instead of a GF4 or a Radeon 8500? I primarily play F1 2002, GPL, NR2002, Dungeon Siege, Jedi Outcast, and various Half-Life mods. I also need good 2D for various modelling and painting programs. I would like to be able to turn on FSAA, particularly in the racing games, and run everything at full detail. I also would like to not have to buy another card next year. Currently using a Celeron at 950 mhz, but will probably be upgrading mb, ram, and cpu later this year. Opinions?

Haqsau wrote: > My trusty 2 year old 32 meg DDR Radeon just isn't cutting it anymore - > it still can do 1024x768x32 without breaking a sweat, but there is not > enough memory for texture heavy games, and not enough horsepower for > FSAA. In a flyer for a local store they are advertising a 128 meg > GeForce 3 Ti200 for $160 (US). Don't do it man. This week's BestBuy ad has a 128MB GF4 Ti4200 for $179.99. Same card I have, BTW. Much more card for only another 20-spot. -- Fester

Here's a GF4, 128 meg for $167 delivered, possibly no sales tax depending on where you live. http://www.fticomputer.com/cgis/detail.cgi?product=VB-A-GT20-GF4-4200&ses=47 f7f56db9a65bf5c7815095e3795491&cat=VB "Haqsau" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:aflo89$ffbk4$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (15 lines)

> My trusty 2 year old 32 meg DDR Radeon just isn't cutting it anymore - > it still can do 1024x768x32 without breaking a sweat, but there is not > enough memory for texture heavy games, and not enough horsepower for > FSAA. In a flyer for a local store they are advertising a 128 meg > GeForce 3 Ti200 for $160 (US). Probably going to head down there > tomorrow to make sure that isn't a typo. Assuming it's legit, what > would I be losing by getting this instead of a GF4 or a Radeon 8500? I > primarily play F1 2002, GPL, NR2002, Dungeon Siege, Jedi Outcast, and > various Half-Life mods. I also need good 2D for various modelling and > painting programs. I would like to be able to turn on FSAA, > particularly in the racing games, and run everything at full detail. I > also would like to not have to buy another card next year. Currently > using a Celeron at 950 mhz, but will probably be upgrading mb, ram, and > cpu later this year. Opinions? >

"Haqsau" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:aflo89$ffbk4$[email hidden]... > would I be losing by getting this instead of a GF4 or a Radeon 8500? I I've just replaced my Radeon AIW, and done a little bit of research beforehand. A bit of what I found out: Most gamers seems to go for the Geforce cards, but if 2D performance is important, the ATI cards will give a more clear and crisp image. The ATI built cards are also better at this then the "powered by ATI" cards. All Geforce cards gives a very dark 3D image. The ATI fans thinks the Geforce cards has serious problems with bad drivers, and the Geforce fans thinks the same about ATI. I have read several post saying things like "never again, I've bought my last Nvidia card". I ended up with Hercules 8500LE 128Mb. About $165 ex VAT. The 8500LE is not clocked quite as fast as the 8500, and it has no second RAMDAC, so you can't attach a second CRT display to the DVI output like you can with the 8500. Jone.

If you are running a Celeron 950, I question whether a new Video Card is really going to be that helpful. NR2002, and most other later games, require just as much CPU performance as they do Video Card performance. I think you need more of an upgrade overall than just the card. If you want to keep costs down, I'd look to something like a 1.4Ghz T-Bird (well under $100 now), a new MB, and at least 256MB of RAM. You might also need to update your Power Supply. You should be able to do that for around $300. Then, a GeForce 4 Ti4200 @ around $200 would be next. I think you need to address the system before the Video Card. -Larry "Haqsau" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:aflo89$ffbk4$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (15 lines)

> My trusty 2 year old 32 meg DDR Radeon just isn't cutting it anymore - > it still can do 1024x768x32 without breaking a sweat, but there is not > enough memory for texture heavy games, and not enough horsepower for > FSAA. In a flyer for a local store they are advertising a 128 meg > GeForce 3 Ti200 for $160 (US). Probably going to head down there > tomorrow to make sure that isn't a typo. Assuming it's legit, what > would I be losing by getting this instead of a GF4 or a Radeon 8500? I > primarily play F1 2002, GPL, NR2002, Dungeon Siege, Jedi Outcast, and > various Half-Life mods. I also need good 2D for various modelling and > painting programs. I would like to be able to turn on FSAA, > particularly in the racing games, and run everything at full detail. I > also would like to not have to buy another card next year. Currently > using a Celeron at 950 mhz, but will probably be upgrading mb, ram, and > cpu later this year. Opinions? >

Has ATI ever fixed the 16 bit color issue? This is one of the few disappointments I had with my Radeon. When I bought it, I assumed I would be able to play everything in 32 bit color and therefore wasn't concerned about the poor speed and image quality in 16 bit color. Then I found that there were a number of games I wanted that did not support 32 bit color. Also, with games released in the last year, racing games in particular, I have to choose between 16 bit color and high texture detail or 32 bit color and low texture detail. I prefer the high texture detail, since it affects the sensation of speed. But 16 bit color on a Radeon is no faster than 32 bit, and there are lots of dithering artifacts. I am not going to buy another Radeon unless I am sure that they have addressed this. I agree with you about the drivers btw. I have owned nVidia cards also, they are no better from a driver standpoint. They just update more often, and that seems to make people feel better about it. Unfortunately it also increases people's confusion. How many posts have you seen in this newsgroup from nVidia owners asking which driver they need to use to get game X to work? "Jone Tytlandsvik" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:afn17d$flmo4$[email hidden]... > > "Haqsau" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:aflo89$ffbk4$[email hidden]... > > > would I be losing by getting this instead of a GF4 or a Radeon 8500?I > > I've just replaced my Radeon AIW, and done a little bit of research > beforehand. > A bit of what I found out: > Most gamers seems to go for the Geforce cards, but if 2D performanceis > important, the ATI cards will give a more clear and crisp image. TheATI > built cards are also better at this then the "powered by ATI" cards. > All Geforce cards gives a very dark 3D image. > The ATI fans thinks the Geforce cards has serious problems with baddrivers, > and the Geforce fans thinks the same about ATI. I have read severalpost > saying things like "never again, I've bought my last Nvidia card". > > I ended up with Hercules 8500LE 128Mb. About $165 ex VAT. > The 8500LE is not clocked quite as fast as the 8500, and it has nosecond > RAMDAC, so you can't attach a second CRT display to the DVI outputlike you > can with the 8500. > > Jone. > >

You are correct, but I am not ready to upgrade CPU yet. I will probably do that later this year or early next year though, so whatever video card I get should be one that will scale with processor. The Radeon is actually capable of good frame rates, but the reason I am looking at a new vid card is because right now I have to run many games at low texture detail levels, due to only having 32 meg on the card. I also cannot run FSAA because the Radeon just isn't that good at it. So I am not expecting faster frame rates from a new card, what I am looking for is to crank up the detail level and run FSAA, both of which are things that are not affected by CPU. Then later this year when I do get the new CPU, if I get a card that scales well, I will get the faster frame rates at that point. "Larry (The Other Larry)" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:44ET8.94943$[email hidden]... > If you are running a Celeron 950, I question whether a new Video Cardis > really going to be that helpful. > > NR2002, and most other later games, require just as much CPUperformance as > they do Video Card performance. > > I think you need more of an upgrade overall than just the card. > > If you want to keep costs down, I'd look to something like a 1.4GhzT-Bird > (well under $100 now), a new MB, and at least 256MB of RAM. You mightalso

Quoted text (10 lines)

> need to update your Power Supply. > > You should be able to do that for around $300. > > Then, a GeForce 4 Ti4200 @ around $200 would be next. > > I think you need to address the system before the Video Card. > > -Larry >

I appreciate your advice, and I definitely agree about the GF3, I did not realize that GF4 prices had come down so much. However, when I bought the 32 meg card I have now, I decided not to spend the extra money for 64 meg, which was quite expensive at the time, because I didn't think any games really needed it. It only took a few months before that was no longer true. I don't want to make the same mistake again, I really want to get a 128 meg card this time. Fast ram is nice, but if you don't have enough of it you are just going to get texture thrashing anyway, and all that internal bandwidth is going to waste. Besides, aren't the 128 meg versions overclockable also? What exactly is the difference in clock speed? "Steve Lane" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > The 64mb Ti 4200's are using faster ram than the 128mb versions and > are out performing the 128mb versions, plus they are even cheaper and > can be better overclocked to 4400/4600 speeds. I recommend getting the > Abit Siluro GF4 Ti 4200 instead. I agree with what you say though, no > one should be wasting money on a GF3 when you can get a GF4 Ti 4200 > for about the same price.

My point is that I think you will be disappointed in what you improvement you get with the new Video Card, and you won't be able to appreciate it until the rest of the system is upgraded. Just be ready for this. -Larry "Haqsau" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:afn4c1$foign$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (42 lines)

> You are correct, but I am not ready to upgrade CPU yet. I will probably > do that later this year or early next year though, so whatever video > card I get should be one that will scale with processor. The Radeon is > actually capable of good frame rates, but the reason I am looking at a > new vid card is because right now I have to run many games at low > texture detail levels, due to only having 32 meg on the card. I also > cannot run FSAA because the Radeon just isn't that good at it. So I am > not expecting faster frame rates from a new card, what I am looking for > is to crank up the detail level and run FSAA, both of which are things > that are not affected by CPU. Then later this year when I do get the > new CPU, if I get a card that scales well, I will get the faster frame > rates at that point. > > > "Larry (The Other Larry)" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:44ET8.94943$[email hidden]... > > If you are running a Celeron 950, I question whether a new Video Card > is > > really going to be that helpful. > > > > NR2002, and most other later games, require just as much CPU > performance as > > they do Video Card performance. > > > > I think you need more of an upgrade overall than just the card. > > > > If you want to keep costs down, I'd look to something like a 1.4Ghz > T-Bird > > (well under $100 now), a new MB, and at least 256MB of RAM. You might > also > > need to update your Power Supply. > > > > You should be able to do that for around $300. > > > > Then, a GeForce 4 Ti4200 @ around $200 would be next. > > > > I think you need to address the system before the Video Card. > > > > -Larry > > > >

In article <aflo89$ffbk4$[email hidden]>, "Haqsau" <[email hidden]> wrote: >In a flyer for a local store they are advertising a 128 meg >GeForce 3 Ti200 for $160 (US). That doesn't sound like such a hot price. Have you checked pricewatch.com? Prices start at about $90 for 64MB, $130 for 128MB. BestBuy lists their $130 64MB card as having a $30 manf rebate, I believe ending today? Does this rebate apply to the bulk/oem priced boards that populate the low-end prices at pricewatch?

On Sun, 30 Jun 2002 10:38:56 -0400, "Haqsau" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (11 lines)

>I appreciate your advice, and I definitely agree about the GF3, I did >not realize that GF4 prices had come down so much. However, when I >bought the 32 meg card I have now, I decided not to spend the extra >money for 64 meg, which was quite expensive at the time, because I >didn't think any games really needed it. It only took a few months >before that was no longer true. I don't want to make the same mistake >again, I really want to get a 128 meg card this time. Fast ram is nice, >but if you don't have enough of it you are just going to get texture >thrashing anyway, and all that internal bandwidth is going to waste. >Besides, aren't the 128 meg versions overclockable also? What exactly >is the difference in clock speed?

The 64M have 500MHz mem clock, the 128M 444MHz. However, look out for mfgs. that put on 4ns RAM or faster even on the 128M, which means safe overclocking. Gainward even guarantees 250/520 MHz speeds with their card. I'd go(and did) with the 128 megger just for the reasons you stated. Jedi Knight 2 already pushed over the texture limits with 64M cards, even with texture compression. With upcoming games, UT2003, Unreal2 and Doom3 probably even more so, ...or not. But I'm not betting against it! I had an 8M Voodoo2, I know texture thrashing! ;-)

This test shows that the Radeon 7500 is a bit faster in 16 bit than 32 bit. It must be the same for the 8500. http://www.digit-life.com/articles/pmradeon2/

I definitely am going to go with a 128 meg card. This review is pretty convincing: http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1643&p=3 "na_biker" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (12 lines)

> > The 64M have 500MHz mem clock, the 128M 444MHz. However, look out for > mfgs. that put on 4ns RAM or faster even on the 128M, which means safe > overclocking. Gainward even guarantees 250/520 MHz speeds with their > card. > > I'd go(and did) with the 128 megger just for the reasons you stated. > Jedi Knight 2 already pushed over the texture limits with 64M cards, > even with texture compression. With upcoming games, UT2003, Unreal2 > and Doom3 probably even more so, ...or not. But I'm not betting > against it! I had an 8M Voodoo2, I know texture thrashing! ;-) >

Whoops, that was actually a link to the second page. Here is a link to the first page: http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1643 "Haqsau" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:afnrps$fpds7$[email hidden]... > I definitely am going to go with a 128 meg card. This review ispretty > convincing: > > http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1643&p=3 >

Thanks for the tip. I checked the local store and they were out of stock, but the notice on the shelf said that the sale is good through July 16. I'll be checking regularly. "Uncle Fester" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > > > Don't do it man. This week's BestBuy ad has a 128MB GF4 Ti4200 for > $179.99. Same card I have, BTW. Much more card for only another20-spot.

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > -- > > Fester > > >

Best Buy has a TERRIBLE problem actually having video cards in stock. It's always been like that. It's almost like they are afraid to have them on the shelf. Except for the $99 and under cards. You can usually get all you want of these. -Larry "Haqsau" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:afobtv$fepju$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (20 lines)

> Thanks for the tip. I checked the local store and they were out of > stock, but the notice on the shelf said that the sale is good through > July 16. I'll be checking regularly. > > > "Uncle Fester" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > > > > > Don't do it man. This week's BestBuy ad has a 128MB GF4 Ti4200 for > > $179.99. Same card I have, BTW. Much more card for only another > 20-spot. > > > > -- > > > > Fester > > > > > > >

Larry (The Other Larry) wrote:

Quoted text (7 lines)

> Best Buy has a TERRIBLE problem actually having video cards in stock. It's > always been like that. > > It's almost like they are afraid to have them on the shelf. > > Except for the $99 and under cards. You can usually get all you want of > these.

Very true. When I got my Ti4200, I almost walked out of the store thinking they didn't have any since I didn't see any on the shelf. It was locked up in a display case & you had to ask for it. -- Fester

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] (Uncle Fester) wrote: > Don't do it man. This week's BestBuy ad has a 128MB GF4 Ti4200 for > $179.99. Same card I have, BTW. Much more card for only another > 20-spot. Don't forget most Geforce 3 Ti200's can be easily overclocked to roughly the same speed as a Ti500. 8-) *Peter*

After much searching I finally found a store that had the Ti4200 in stock. Wow. Didn't make a difference in some games, due to low spec CPU, but in games where I was struggling with the detail level it made a huge difference. Frame rates in F1 2001 nearly doubled. F1 2002 is about the same but that's because I got impatient and turned the detail way up without doing a proper comparison first. NR2002 is also much faster, although vsync seems to be on now, I had disabled that before. Guess I'll have to dig around and try to figure out how to shut it off. Anyway I am very happy with it; thanks for the tip, Fester! "Uncle Fester" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > > Don't do it man. This week's BestBuy ad has a 128MB GF4 Ti4200 for > $179.99. Same card I have, BTW. Much more card for only another20-spot.

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > -- > > Fester > > >

Haqsau wrote:

Quoted text (9 lines)

> After much searching I finally found a store that had the Ti4200 in > stock. Wow. Didn't make a difference in some games, due to low spec > CPU, but in games where I was struggling with the detail level it made a > huge difference. Frame rates in F1 2001 nearly doubled. F1 2002 is > about the same but that's because I got impatient and turned the detail > way up without doing a proper comparison first. NR2002 is also much > faster, although vsync seems to be on now, I had disabled that before. > Guess I'll have to dig around and try to figure out how to shut it off. > Anyway I am very happy with it; thanks for the tip, Fester!

Very cool. Happy simming! :-) -- Fester

NVHardPage will re-enable the Vsync option for D3D, as well as other options, in the Det 4 Drivers. -Larry "Haqsau" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:ag0lqb$h7mpi$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (24 lines)

> After much searching I finally found a store that had the Ti4200 in > stock. Wow. Didn't make a difference in some games, due to low spec > CPU, but in games where I was struggling with the detail level it made a > huge difference. Frame rates in F1 2001 nearly doubled. F1 2002 is > about the same but that's because I got impatient and turned the detail > way up without doing a proper comparison first. NR2002 is also much > faster, although vsync seems to be on now, I had disabled that before. > Guess I'll have to dig around and try to figure out how to shut it off. > Anyway I am very happy with it; thanks for the tip, Fester! > > "Uncle Fester" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > > > Don't do it man. This week's BestBuy ad has a 128MB GF4 Ti4200 for > > $179.99. Same card I have, BTW. Much more card for only another > 20-spot. > > > > -- > > > > Fester > > > > > > >

I ended up using Riva Tuner, which I guess is similar. Odd that nVidia can't get the control panel right after it has been around essentially unchanged for so long. "Larry (The Other Larry)" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:9K7V8.23796$%%[email hidden]... > NVHardPage will re-enable the Vsync option for D3D, as well as other > options, in the Det 4 Drivers. > > -Larry >

It's not that they can't get it right. It's a WHQL certification requirement that these options not be enabled. -Larry "Haqsau" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:ag37vn$ib3kr$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (13 lines)

> I ended up using Riva Tuner, which I guess is similar. Odd that nVidia > can't get the control panel right after it has been around essentially > unchanged for so long. > > "Larry (The Other Larry)" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:9K7V8.23796$%%[email hidden]... > > NVHardPage will re-enable the Vsync option for D3D, as well as other > > options, in the Det 4 Drivers. > > > > -Larry > > > >

On Fri, 05 Jul 2002 19:32:22 GMT, "Larry \(The Other Larry\)" <[email hidden]> wrote: >It's not that they can't get it right. It's a WHQL certification >requirement that these options not be enabled. >Too bad. Is there a non-WHQL-certified version of the drivers, then? -- __________ ____---____ Marco Antonio Checa Funcke \_________D /-/---_----' Santiago de Surco, Lima, Peru _H__/_/ http://machf.tripod.com '-_____|( remove the "no_me_j." and "sons.of." parts before replying

It's still disabled in the non-WHQL drivers as far as I remember. Luckily, it's easy to get around. -Larry "machf" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > On Fri, 05 Jul 2002 19:32:22 GMT, "Larry \(The Other Larry\)"<[email hidden]>

Quoted text (14 lines)

> wrote: > > >It's not that they can't get it right. It's a WHQL certification > >requirement that these options not be enabled. > > > Too bad. Is there a non-WHQL-certified version of the drivers, then? > > -- > __________ ____---____ Marco Antonio Checa Funcke > \_________D /-/---_----' Santiago de Surco, Lima, Peru > _H__/_/ http://machf.tripod.com > '-_____|( > > remove the "no_me_j." and "sons.of." parts before replying

The coolbits reg hack will turn it on (as will tweakers like you pointed out), but it still does not seem to be reliable. If I turn off vsync in OpenGL, it will turn off anisotropic filtering. If I turn on anisotropic filtering, it turns vsync back on. Very strange. But fortunately I can get both to work with Riva Tuner. "Larry (The Other Larry)" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:GVsV8.29552$%%[email hidden]...

Quoted text (26 lines)

> It's still disabled in the non-WHQL drivers as far as I remember. > > Luckily, it's easy to get around. > > -Larry > > "machf" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > On Fri, 05 Jul 2002 19:32:22 GMT, "Larry \(The Other Larry\)" > <[email hidden]> > > wrote: > > > > >It's not that they can't get it right. It's a WHQL certification > > >requirement that these options not be enabled. > > > > > Too bad. Is there a non-WHQL-certified version of the drivers, then? > > > > -- > > __________ ____---____ Marco Antonio Checa Funcke > > \_________D /-/---_----' Santiago de Surco, Lima, Peru > > _H__/_/ http://machf.tripod.com > > '-_____|( > > > > remove the "no_me_j." and "sons.of." parts before replying > >

Coolbits quit working reliably a long, long time ago. I think they died with the DET3 driver series. However, as has been noted, utilities like NVHardPage have taken up the slack to re-enable those pages in the Driver control panel. -Larry "Haqsau" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:ag5mq0$j3fqa$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (36 lines)

> The coolbits reg hack will turn it on (as will tweakers like you pointed > out), but it still does not seem to be reliable. If I turn off vsync in > OpenGL, it will turn off anisotropic filtering. If I turn on > anisotropic filtering, it turns vsync back on. Very strange. But > fortunately I can get both to work with Riva Tuner. > > > "Larry (The Other Larry)" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:GVsV8.29552$%%[email hidden]... > > It's still disabled in the non-WHQL drivers as far as I remember. > > > > Luckily, it's easy to get around. > > > > -Larry > > > > "machf" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > On Fri, 05 Jul 2002 19:32:22 GMT, "Larry \(The Other Larry\)" > > <[email hidden]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > >It's not that they can't get it right. It's a WHQL certification > > > >requirement that these options not be enabled. > > > > > > > Too bad. Is there a non-WHQL-certified version of the drivers, then? > > > > > > -- > > > __________ ____---____ Marco Antonio Checa Funcke > > > \_________D /-/---_----' Santiago de Surco, Lima, Peru > > > _H__/_/ http://machf.tripod.com > > > '-_____|( > > > > > > remove the "no_me_j." and "sons.of." parts before replying > > > > >