PCA Forums

Its time to upgrade one my computers video card. My budget is 100 dollars for new video card what are good recommendations for this price range????

This one- by far-

http://www.fticomputer.com/cgis/detail. ... 0b2&cat=VB

I have a retail boxed version ATI Radeon 7500 ( clocked @ 275/275) that comes with everything that came in the box ( cables, cd, DVI to VGA adapter etc.) that I can let ya have for $110.

I don't like Radeon cards. Some people are happy with theirs but I and many others have been disappointed at lack luster driver support from ATI.

I recommend the MSI Geforce2 Titanium for under $100 a http://www.NewEgg.com (do a product search for "Geforce2 PRO").

A MUCH better card would be the Geforce3 Ti-200 (NewEgg has the Chaintech for $140) if you can spare the extra $40.


You also didn't mention what CPU you're running or what your current video card is.

Not much point upgrading to any of these cards if your CPU is the bottleneck.

penguin my computer specs are these

VP6 Abit Board
dual 1.0ghz@1.25ghz
1gig of ram
60gig HD
Aureal Vortex sound card
linksys
Ati radeon 32mb ddr ram (it sucks i dont like i was thinking of going with card thats not ATI)

Fearfox:
Whether or not your 32 DDR Radeon "sucks" the facts are these:
1. The Radeon 7500 will give you ~equalperformance than any $100 GF2
2. The Radeon will have better 2d than the GF2
3. The Radeon will be better at dvd than the GF2
4. The texturing of the Radeon will be better at default settings than the GF2, and if you turn on aniso, etc to make GF2 look like Radeon, it will be slower
5. I don't know what Penguin is talking about for drivers unless he runs XP

http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=1544&p=8
B&W 7500 40fps GF2 Ti 44fps

http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=1544&p=9
Serious Sam 7500 61fps GF2 Ti 57fps

http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=1544&p=10
Q3 7500 123fps GF2 Ti 130fps

http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=1544&p=11
RTCW 7500 115fps GF2 Ti 114fps

Point being, the 7500 is as fast at gaming, and has better image quality. Can anyone post something the GF2 does better?

BTW- I had a Radeon VIVO and a GF2 Pro, I know what I'm talking about when I say the Radeon had better image quality.

What he said. ^ I run XP and I haven't had any probs with the last 3-4 sets of drivers. The 7500 mops the floor with GF2.

With a 1 Ghz you have enough CPU performance to appreciate a better card.

As I said, some people are very happy with ATI cards - me, I don't like them.

It's a crap shoot - I'm convinced Radeons like certain hardware configurations and not others. If you're lucky enough to have a configuration they like, they work like a charm.

There's also no denying there's a fair number of people unhappy with ATI drivers (again check the posts here).

I recommend NVidia cards only because they consistently seem to work with most games with less issues and they've worked well for me. I don't argue that there's plenty of happy Radeon owners.

A Radeon definately has better 2D image quality than a GF2 (a good quality GF3, though, looks just as good in my opinion).

In theory (on paper according to the specs) the Radeon 7500 should outperform a GF2 - even a Titanium version. In real world numbers, however, I'd call them even.

It's your call, but if you've been unhappy with the Radeon DDR you probably won't be happy with a newer version.


WARNING: The previous statement is My Opinion. My Opinion is considered by some to be "full of hot air". In a small percentage of cases My Opinion has been known to cause mild side effects such as difficulty breathing, loss of appetite and stroke. In a very small percentage of men (less than 3 percent), My Opinion has been shown in the laboratory to cause loss of sex drive and hair loss. Pregnant women should avoid My Opinion because of the risk of a certain type of birth defect. Remember My Opinion is not a cure, but if used regularly it can alleviate most of the symptoms...

That <i>WARNING</i>: won't save ya. <img src="http://sbp777.homestead.com/files/wink2.gif">

"I recommend NVidia cards only because they consistently seem to work with most games with less issues and they've worked well for me. I don't argue that there's plenty of happy Radeon owners."
Back a few years ago 3dfx cards were the most compatible. That was because 3dfx was top dog and game developers optimized for those cards. It took a while for developers to see 3dfx was going down. Now ATI is in the same position as Nvidia was back then.

ATI is not going to get slack on drivers unlike Nvidia. Its just like Nvidia won't shake off its reputation for poor image quality. Certainly the launch of the 8500 didn't help out ATI's driver reputation.

<b>Jethro</b> please pm me your email address-your old one bounces back.

"I prefer performance to appearance" (FP)

I'd keep that opinion in mind when taking any of these " recommendations" to heart. I thought the days of 16-bit gaming were finally history.

So if the GF2's ( only the GF2 Ultra is close, btw) are dead even in performance with the 7500, why wouldn't you get the card that looks WAY better and has better features? While the 8500 was indeed rushed out and suffered from some INITIAL problems with their drivers, the 7500 has worked great for me and in other systems I've built for peeps using the drivers right off the cd and the numerous subsequent releases. I sometimes wonder if some peeps are even installing the ATi drivers correctly before criticizing them.

I guess if you're into nothing but gaming and are using a cpu 2 generations old and need raw 16-bit graphics speed to compensate, the Nivida stuff is a play. It ant a play for me though, I require a more well rounded solution.

BTW, I have a Radeon 32ddr in my kidz' 1.0 @ 1.2 GHz Morgan core Duron system and it plays any game I throw at it with aplomb. Looks good doin' it too.

Now Todd is talking bad about my old system as well, dagnabbit.

PS check your mail bud.

Hi Thomas,

Hey I had 700e P3 @ 1011 that was a pretty nice rig too but that was like a year and half ago. Times they are changin' bruh. When you can pick up a Duron 1 gigger for $45 bux, OC it to 1200 at default voltage and have it wipe the floor with a Pee4 1.4 ( #'s available on request ), let alone a P3 1 GHz what's the point in staying with that old stuff?

My advice to this guy would be dump that P3 dually rig ( while it's still worth somethin') for a Duron 1.2, an Iwill XP333 and a Radeon 7500. Clock the Duron up to 1.4-1.5 with some smokin' cas2 DDR ram and VOILA! Say hello to Mr. Macho budget gaming rig! Prolly have enuff cash left over to take the Missus out to KFC too. :lol

But that's just me and I've been called worse than crazy around here before. So to each his own.

But , being the "sport" that I am, here's linkage to a GF2-Ultra for sale at a pretty nice price on our own buy/sell forum.


http://www.pcabusers.net/forums/showthr ... adid=16657

Just my $.02 which is subject to currency devaluation.

Vid_2

so a Duron 1.0ghz@1.2 ghz can outperform a pentium 3 1.0ghz@125ghz really hey vidman can you explain this. i thought that durons had only 128k Cache while pentium 3 coppermine has 256k?

FP, didn't you just try out one ATI card and that being the vivo. If I recall you hated it because it didn't give you your desired frame rates with games.

I had the vivo and it played all games just fine and drivers worked well. Sometimes you had to change to get better performance, yes. Now I have the 7500 and it's close to double the game performance over the vivo. Drivers have never been a problem at all.

My brother has a geeforce 2 64mb and either of these ati cards hammer it with superior visual quality and the 7500 blows it out with better fps.

So with your one bad experience, you don't like ati. But hey I admit it, I doubt I'll ever own any Nvidea card. My hatred grew from certain dips praising them no matter what. So I reckon we all have our reasons.

I didn't say compare the Duron with the P3 @ 1.25 but rather at 1.0.....eh? Although I'd like to see the numbers of the P3 1.25 vs the Duron. Sandra only lists a P3 1 gigger for comparison purposes.

But here's some Sandra 2002 #s of my kidz' Duron @ 1.2 ( 10*120 FSB) vs a P3 @ 1gig

Multimedia ( Duron )

Integer SSE : 6705
Floating Point SSE: 7720

Multimedia ( P3 1.0 )

Integer SSE: 5428
Floating Point SSE: 6640

-------------------------------------

CPU ( Duron )

ALU: 3378
FPU: 1674

CPU ( P3 1.0 )

ALU: 2700
FPU: 1340

------------------------------------

Memory ( Duron on a KT133A chipset w/ ram @ cas2, 161, HstCLK*1.33 )

ALU: 678
FPU: 727

Memory ( P3 1.0 on an Intel 815 w/ cas2 PC133 )

ALU: 397
FPU: 468

Hmmm. Interesting. Maybe they'd be similar with the P3 @ 1.25 or even little higher on your end but I bet you paid more than 45 bux for that P3 1 gigger. Heck, the P3 1 giggerz are still $118 each (incl shipping) on Pricewatch even now! OUCH. You can get an Athlon XP1600+ ( 1.4 gig) for that kind of money. These Morgan core Durons are better chips than most people think and for the money they can't be beat.

Like I said tho, to each his own. BTW, you sure have alot of vid card threads going. You ever decide what you're gonna get? Maybe a nvidia thingy would be be best for that rig. Heck I gave ya a link to a nice(?) GF-2 Ultra didn't I?