Wicked3d

[lecram25]

Now why would you ruin that beautiful system with a Geforce?

[qrazi]

get a geforce fx XT, if you want the best bang for your buck

[amp_man]

Originally posted by qrazi

get a geforce fx XT, if you want the best bang for your buck

err, the GF XT series are sh!t, they're like the MXs, except they've stolen the letters to insult ATI's amazing XT series. Don't get an nvidia XT, ATI rulez

[Shogakusha]

best bang for the buck, solid performance but not too expensive, the Radeon 9600.  Not the Radeon 9600 SE or Lite, as they suck, but the Radeon 9600 is gold in my book.  And if you're flush with cash, Radeon 9800 XT or Pro.  But then I like ATI.

[Mavrick]

How about a FX 5200 256DDR with 400Mhz tv out dvi?

[qrazi]

well, whats your budget?

btw: a geforce fx 5900 XT sells for 180 euro here, thats cheaper then most 9600 XT cards, while it will outperform a 9600xt, and clock a lot higher. dont tell me a 9600 pro is the best bang for the buck... only when making heavy use of FSAA and AF, the 9600xt is the better option.

[Mavrick]

the card im getting is a FX 5200 with 256DDR and 400mhz tv out and dvi, it's above the G force.

[lecram25]

w00t! congratulations, you've just turned into an nVidiot! Why get a 5200? Cause it has 256mb of ram on it? Lemme tell you a little kept secret, THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 128MB AND 256MB RAM (performance-wise)...if you're gonna be cheap, be cheap, but don't expect any performance out of that 5200...





p.s.: don't say we didn't try to help you...

[Mavrick]

what would u recomend for about $300 dallars?
the ramdac is 400mhz the difference in price wasent that much from the 128 to the 256....and im getting it from a freind who gets computer stuff at cost so it's really costing me about $100 it would be about 250 to 300 retail..i wish VooDoo was still in busness..

[lecram25]

Get a 9700pro, they're only $198 atm, which is dirt cheap, considering they retailed for $399 ~1 yr ago...

link: http://www.pricewatch.com/1/37/5780-1.htm

[Mavrick]

GeForce FX                   my monitor is a 19''
5700 Ultra:
Graphics Core 256-bit        
Memory Interface 256-bit      
Memory Bandwidth 14.4GB/sec.  
Fill Rate 1.9 billion texels/sec.
Vertices per Second 356 million
Memory Data Rate 900 MHz
Pixels per Clock (peak) 4
Textures per Pixel* 16
Dual RAMDACs 400 MHz

[lecram25]

And if you fork out $50 more, you can get a card that actually runs dx9 intensive apps...might I also mention you'll be able to play games with AA and AF enabled with little to no performance hit...

From this page on (look at all the benchmarks), you make your decision:

http://www6.tomshardware.com/graphic/20031229/vga-charts-03.html#unreal_tournament_2003

[amp_man]

http://www.pcstats.com/articleview.cfm?articleid=1534&page=3

Haven't read the entire thing, but from what I see, only overclocked does the 5700U manage to outperform a 9700Pro at stock speed.

[lecram25]

GeForce FX 5700U Core:475  Memory:900 128-bit 4x1

Radeon 9700 Pro Core:325 Memory:620 256-bit 8x1

Let's get real here...the 5700U dies in shader performance...it has a 128-bit memory bus, and 4 pipes and 1 tmu per pipe, i.e. CASTRATED...for $50 more, come on...not to mention a 9700pro is a high end card compared to the 5700u which is mainstream; THEY DON'T COMPARE

[Mavrick]

OK OK I'll Buy The Radeon 9700 Pro:D