The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
What are the differences between ati radeon and geforce 4 ti 128 mb graphics cards? and what is a PRO card all about? does it work faster?
CHEERS!!!!
CHEERS!!!!
Page:
Bit of sensible advice -
If it's not your own (a great deal of us on here are using our own machines), then don't go messing around with FSB's, clock multipliers etc...
Admittedly, the chances of you actually knackering your P4 are slim, but just imagine if it DID happen...what would you say to your old man? Deny it and have the guilt on your shoulders, or own up and prepare for a serious spanking? ;)
Just my 2p worth.
If it's not your own (a great deal of us on here are using our own machines), then don't go messing around with FSB's, clock multipliers etc...
Admittedly, the chances of you actually knackering your P4 are slim, but just imagine if it DID happen...what would you say to your old man? Deny it and have the guilt on your shoulders, or own up and prepare for a serious spanking? ;)
Just my 2p worth.
Hoo. I think I may not have a 9200 then, because Direct X9 works fine with mine........
I updated some drivers as Homeworld II said I should......and thats a DX9 game I think.
How the hell do you overclock? I'd like to, but I'm a bit scared of
A) Destroying my (dads) PC through fire/heat etc
B) Techy stuff
I updated some drivers as Homeworld II said I should......and thats a DX9 game I think.
How the hell do you overclock? I'd like to, but I'm a bit scared of
A) Destroying my (dads) PC through fire/heat etc
B) Techy stuff
Snipe® wrote:
> bloody hell bit boring techy stuff :|
Sorry ;-)
> bloody hell bit boring techy stuff :|
Sorry ;-)
bloody hell bit boring techy stuff :|
Cyclone wrote:
> O hallowed Safedisc; (seriously)
Hmmmm. I this I detect a hint of sarcasm there ;-)
> I have just got a P4 2600, 512MB ram
Sounds good. It'd be interesting to know what sort of P4 it is, like what the bus speed is (533Mhz, 800Mhz), and equally I wonder what speed RAM you have and also what mobo you are running, but it doesn't really matter - that is a decent set-up. Ever thought of OC'ing that P4?
I have a P4c (c = 800Mhz FSB) 2.4 gig running at 3gig stable as anything - only about 50 degrees C under full load! Adds quite a bit to the bandwidth and overall speed.
Just a thought.
ATI Radeon 9200 PC.
Hmm, chanced of this card playing HL2 at a good resolution (1024 x 768?) and at high frame rates are minimal IMHO - and also remember that the 9200 is not a DX9 compliant card - so pixel shaders, HDR and other nice new effects that HL2 uses won't be available to you. It WILL run the game, but you are gonna’ need to run in a lower resolution (800 X 600) and knock a few of the settings down a bit.
Well that is what I would guess at this time judging by benchmarks released by Value at the ATI Shader Day event.
The video card is quite obviously the bottleneck of an otherwise good system.
Still with HL2 put back to April 2004 - you've got plenty of time to save up and get a better video card for the release. :-)
Nice
> O hallowed Safedisc; (seriously)
Hmmmm. I this I detect a hint of sarcasm there ;-)
> I have just got a P4 2600, 512MB ram
Sounds good. It'd be interesting to know what sort of P4 it is, like what the bus speed is (533Mhz, 800Mhz), and equally I wonder what speed RAM you have and also what mobo you are running, but it doesn't really matter - that is a decent set-up. Ever thought of OC'ing that P4?
I have a P4c (c = 800Mhz FSB) 2.4 gig running at 3gig stable as anything - only about 50 degrees C under full load! Adds quite a bit to the bandwidth and overall speed.
Just a thought.
ATI Radeon 9200 PC.
Hmm, chanced of this card playing HL2 at a good resolution (1024 x 768?) and at high frame rates are minimal IMHO - and also remember that the 9200 is not a DX9 compliant card - so pixel shaders, HDR and other nice new effects that HL2 uses won't be available to you. It WILL run the game, but you are gonna’ need to run in a lower resolution (800 X 600) and knock a few of the settings down a bit.
Well that is what I would guess at this time judging by benchmarks released by Value at the ATI Shader Day event.
The video card is quite obviously the bottleneck of an otherwise good system.
Still with HL2 put back to April 2004 - you've got plenty of time to save up and get a better video card for the release. :-)
Nice
O hallowed Safedisc; (seriously)
I have just got a P4 2600, 512MB ram, ATI Radeon 9200 PC. Graphics card being the most obvious weakness, but I can run Unreal II perfectly etc.
It plays everything dandy now, but will it cope with HL2 etc.
It better do!
Grrr...
I have just got a P4 2600, 512MB ram, ATI Radeon 9200 PC. Graphics card being the most obvious weakness, but I can run Unreal II perfectly etc.
It plays everything dandy now, but will it cope with HL2 etc.
It better do!
Grrr...
Notorious Biggles wrote:
>
> However for £109 I can get a 128Mb 9600 Pro.
So I think I'll go with the ATI card and get it... from SR
> obviously.
A wise decision indeed.
>
> However for £109 I can get a 128Mb 9600 Pro.
So I think I'll go with the ATI card and get it... from SR
> obviously.
A wise decision indeed.
The prices I was using were using were from a local PC shop.
Must be out of stock on some of the cards now, as the 5600 Ultra isn't there now.
However for £109 I can get a 128Mb 9600 Pro. Or a 256Mb 5600 standard. So I think I'll go with the ATI card and get it... from SR obviously.
Must be out of stock on some of the cards now, as the 5600 Ultra isn't there now.
However for £109 I can get a 128Mb 9600 Pro. Or a 256Mb 5600 standard. So I think I'll go with the ATI card and get it... from SR obviously.
Notorious Biggles wrote:
> I doubt he knows too much.
>
> Oh hallowed safedisc
>
> 9600 Pro or FX 5600 Ultra? Both 256 Mb. And similar price.
Notorious Biggles wrote:
> I doubt he knows too much.
>
> Oh hallowed safedisc
>
> 9600 Pro or FX 5600 Ultra? Both 256 Mb. And similar price.
You can never know too much. You can only learn more :-p
And I (and anyone else of a sane mind) would go for a 9600Pro without hesitation.
A 9600Pro is faster than a 5600 Ultra in also every game that is currently available, and if we look to the future, the 9600Pro pulls even further ahead. Try running HL2 or Doom 3 on your FX with full Floating point precision and you’re in for a nasty shock. And that is before we even get into the FPS of the card.
However, the other (and arguably more important) question here is why would you go for the 256MB version? There is just no real gain of this amount of video RAM on cards of this power – and that is relevant to both the FX and Radeon card. It’s just a waste of cash.
Bottom line, the extra video memory on the current ‘level’ of cards is just not worth the cash. You are talking about 10 FPS improvement at ultra high resolutions (read: 1600 X 1200) with X4 AA and X16 AS. Video memory is used for texture etc, but I can’t think of a single game that would use 128MB of video RAM! Okay, HL2 and Doom 3 might use more the 128MB, but the extra RAM will be useless on these games because the GPU of the video card isn’t quick enough. It’s just a marketing gimmick – not unlike the AGP x* thing. But don’t get me started on that :-)
Even on the FX 5900 Ultra and 9800XT (which has 256MB RAM) the gains are simply not worth your cash.
Just checked on a few websites and for roughly the same price as a 5600 Ultra you can get a Radeon Asus Radeon 9600XT! I know which one I would go for.
> I doubt he knows too much.
>
> Oh hallowed safedisc
>
> 9600 Pro or FX 5600 Ultra? Both 256 Mb. And similar price.
Notorious Biggles wrote:
> I doubt he knows too much.
>
> Oh hallowed safedisc
>
> 9600 Pro or FX 5600 Ultra? Both 256 Mb. And similar price.
You can never know too much. You can only learn more :-p
And I (and anyone else of a sane mind) would go for a 9600Pro without hesitation.
A 9600Pro is faster than a 5600 Ultra in also every game that is currently available, and if we look to the future, the 9600Pro pulls even further ahead. Try running HL2 or Doom 3 on your FX with full Floating point precision and you’re in for a nasty shock. And that is before we even get into the FPS of the card.
However, the other (and arguably more important) question here is why would you go for the 256MB version? There is just no real gain of this amount of video RAM on cards of this power – and that is relevant to both the FX and Radeon card. It’s just a waste of cash.
Bottom line, the extra video memory on the current ‘level’ of cards is just not worth the cash. You are talking about 10 FPS improvement at ultra high resolutions (read: 1600 X 1200) with X4 AA and X16 AS. Video memory is used for texture etc, but I can’t think of a single game that would use 128MB of video RAM! Okay, HL2 and Doom 3 might use more the 128MB, but the extra RAM will be useless on these games because the GPU of the video card isn’t quick enough. It’s just a marketing gimmick – not unlike the AGP x* thing. But don’t get me started on that :-)
Even on the FX 5900 Ultra and 9800XT (which has 256MB RAM) the gains are simply not worth your cash.
Just checked on a few websites and for roughly the same price as a 5600 Ultra you can get a Radeon Asus Radeon 9600XT! I know which one I would go for.
Notorious Biggles wrote:
> I doubt he knows too much.
>
> Oh hallowed safedisc
>
> 9600 Pro or FX 5600 Ultra? Both 256 Mb. And similar price.
I've personally got a FX 5600. Not the greatest, but makes a massive difference on my machine. For some reason I've always been loyal to Nvidea.
> I doubt he knows too much.
>
> Oh hallowed safedisc
>
> 9600 Pro or FX 5600 Ultra? Both 256 Mb. And similar price.
I've personally got a FX 5600. Not the greatest, but makes a massive difference on my machine. For some reason I've always been loyal to Nvidea.
Page: