Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Antares on February 29, 2004, 11:26:22 am
-
Okay. So.
I'll be popping for a new computer sometime in May. This will be a Dell system, since I can't assemble a computer on my own, nor do I have the resources to coax someone into putting one together for me.
I've found a model of desktop that's relatively inexpensive and offers the vast majority of the options I want in a new system, save for one catch. The only video cards offered are Intel's Integrated Extreme Graphics (which is what I have now and won't be purchasing again, as it's not fully HTL-compatible), an Nvidia GeForce FX 5200 (128 MB), and an ATI Radeon 9800 Pro (128 MB).
I've heard good things about ATI--and they power my GameCube--and the general consensus on these boards seems to be "GeForce sux", so I'm leaning toward Radeon. My next question is this: If I shell out about five hundred extra dollars, I'll be able to purchase a more capable Dell model that supports A) A P4 3.4 Ghz processor as opposed to a 3.2, and B) an ATI Radeon 9800 XT (256 MB).
Assuming that Radeons are in fact better cards, I ask you: is it worth $500 for the extra graphics memory and the increase in processor speed?
-
well if you do get a P4 3.4 with radeon 9800 you won't have to upgrade within the next 4 years or so.
-
All I've heard suggests that ATI is better.... though I'd hold off buying anything for a bit, given the talk of a new case standard, which'd possibly held reduce the price of ATX. Incidentally, the FX5200 is a budget-ish card, but IIRC the 9800XT is close to the top.
I'd take the graphics card over a paltry 200MHz any day, though. .... MHz is an increasingly (if not already) useless way of measuring performance. Although i'm not sure either are actually worth anywhere near $500, even allowing for the exchange rate.
Oh, incidentally, the Flipper GPU in the Gamecube isn't made by ATI per se - it's made by artX, who were bought over by ATI after they won the GC contract.
-
Apparently the FX5200 has about the performance of a GeForce 4 but is a DirectX 9 capable card. The 9800XT is currently the top of the line Radeon card, the 9800 Pro is right behind it. Supposedly the XT has about a 1-2% performance gain over the Pro for current games. The 9800Pro should seriously outperform the FX5200.
Without wanting to start a GeForce vs Radeon arguement, what I've seen suggests the latest Radeon architecture performs better than the GeForce's when dealing with DirectX9.
-
Originally posted by Antares
Assuming that Radeons are in fact better cards, I ask you: is it worth $500 for the extra graphics memory and the increase in processor speed?
I'd say not. Especially with this (http://www.allstarshop.com/shop/simprod.asp?pid=8282&ad=pwatch) lurking around. :nod:
-
Radeon
-
I would say this: Does it matter? At the moment the performance difference between the top end cards is negligible, especially when you plug them into a gig of RAM and a beast of a processor. It's those two that really determine performance. Don't believe me? Talk to my friend Edmon. He ran Unreal Tourny 2k3 at max resolution with everything switched on. He only had a GeForce 2 in there at the time as it was a leftover from his previous machine. He got away with it because the thing has a processor around the 3.5GHz mark in addition to over a gig of RAM.
I myself have always used the GeForce chipset and haven't had any issues.
-
well, if he's gonna pay for it, he might as well get the best of the two :rolleyes:
Radeon, btw.
-
Nvidia typically have better OGL performance where ATI usually lags behind, usually needing some kind of game specific patch.
I don't care how much something costs, I just want to work as it is supposed to straight out of the box without needing a patch or extra software for it work correctly.
Nvidia does this, whereas, according to what I've read, ATI doesn't so much. I currently own Nvidia and will likely buy it again, performance be damned, I play games at desktop res any way.
-
say Antares, where do you live? if you live near me I'd be happy to put together a system for you...provided you got the parts. ;)
If I had the money I'd get an ATI Radeon 9800XT. But I don't have the money so I plan on getting an Nvidia.
However I had a Geforce3 (not the ****ty Ti one(s)) and it worked great for Halo. I had everthing except spec on and (I think) 800x600 resolution. And the best part is you can get one for ~$60 online.
-
I'm still using my GF3 HotSnoJ - glad I made the invesment when I bought it.
If I were to buy a card now, it would definitely be a Radeon.
The upgrade path you choose is really based on the funds you have available. If you plan on buying a card every 2 years or so (if you play a lot of current games), go with the 9600XT. If you plan on waiting out for longer [which, was the path I chose going from my TNT2 to the GF3 ], buy a 9800XT.
I don't really play any of the latest games. My GF3 could handle Halo and Prince of Persia decently, and that was good enough for me.
For me, if I had the cash I would buy the 9800. I've got cash for a 9600, but I don't really need it. The real performance gain for me would be to buy the 9800.
Though, I'm not doing any upgrades to my machine at all. I'm saving up for a new system in 1.5 - 2 years.
-
Originally posted by Killfrenzy
I would say this: Does it matter? At the moment the performance difference between the top end cards is negligible, especially when you plug them into a gig of RAM and a beast of a processor. It's those two that really determine performance. Don't believe me? Talk to my friend Edmon. He ran Unreal Tourny 2k3 at max resolution with everything switched on. He only had a GeForce 2 in there at the time as it was a leftover from his previous machine. He got away with it because the thing has a processor around the 3.5GHz mark in addition to over a gig of RAM.
I myself have always used the GeForce chipset and haven't had any issues.
Well, more and more stuff is going to be handed over to the GPU for processing, so I'd imagine that GF2 will very rapidly become a bottleneck point.......it's not a case of the CPU / RAM affecting performance, because the instructions themselves will be passed directly to the GPU.
-
I've never had a problem with nVidia, had problems with all the ATI cards I've had in the past, though I think ATI have the edge in the current generation of cards, I'm going to wait for the next generation to come to push down the prices on both sets of cards.
-
nVidia cards have a habbit of spotainiusly combusting.
also Geforce cards lack many features, ATI has, if you are looking for a card that will play FSO best I tell you now that would be a Radeon
-
aye, go for Radeon if you have the cash or nvidia if you wanna save a couple of bucks. Either way you will notice a huge improvement from your current box and I'm sure you wo'nt really care much of those extra few frames etc... :)
Good Luck lol.
-Grug
-
The FX 5200 doesn't even hit the same level as the old Ti4200s. 9800 Pro is your best bet out of those 3.
-
Radeon hands-down for the features. Some of its neat tricks, like that Truform-doohickey, can do some sweet stuff in FSO, which is all that counts really. ;)
-
I'd go with Radeon... not that it really matters though but :p
Mainly it's just a matter of taste in the end I suppose
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
Radeon
I'd go for the 3.2GHz and Radeon 9600 Pro, because $500 is not worth the higher end. With recent news of PCI Express cards entering the market spending that extra money may be unwise. Anyway heres a comparision of a 9600XT and Pro at Asus (http://www.asus.com/products/vga/r9800xt/overview.htm). You probably won't have an Asus but there generally very similar across the board, though the only extra features an XT will have over an SE/Pro is about a 5% overall increase in performance (memory really doesn't make much difference) and Multi-Video Input, because SE/Pro cards only have output.
-
[color=66ff00]I got a radeon 9800 pro 128mb, I can tell you with no ego that it's an absolutely killer card, massive FPS in games, high res. and brilliant effects. As far as I know the XT is clocked higher and has more RAM but in almost all of the reviews I've read the 128mb was 95% identical in performance to the 256.
Personally I think the XT is a waste of cash when you can get the pro card for much less. :nod:
[/color]
-
Found this site, they do custom PC's!!
http://www.mavericpc.com/systems.html
-
cof cof (http://www.pcstats.com/articleview.cfm?articleID=908) cof cof (http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,3973,1417293,00.asp) cof...
:rolleyes:
-
never buy anything in the graphics card market with an nVidia chip on it - their R&D cycles are horrendous and almost every chip from them is overclocked from the fab - and if it';s not it'll soon be overclocked by a driver update.
There is a reason why they needed a vacuum cleaner to cool their chip that barely compared to the Radeon 9700
i hear their motherboards aren't bad - but it'd still got with Via chipsets for athlon mobos (this cominmg from a guy who used to hate Via with a passion, until they cleaned up their act)
-
I've decided to go ahead and pop for the 256 MB Radeon 9800 XT. I'm waiting for Intel to finish up their latest revisions to their shaky "Prescott" series of P4s, and a power-optimized version is due sometime in May. Intel says they'll only have optimization for chips up to 3.2 Ghz at that time, before they start work on chips with higher clock speeds. This means I can forego getting a 3.4 entirely, and take about $200 off the price of my system in the process, bringing the cost of the Radeon alone down to about $300--something I think is a good investment in a computer I want to last for the next several years.
-
I sincerely doubt that Intel will do much with Prescott to make it a decent chip for quite a while, especially as they just announced a delay of the 3.0GHz part, most likely due to heat concerns. If you want a top of the line computer that'll last you a long time, get a Newcastle-based AMD64 processor in April or so, probably with a K8T800 Pro-based motherboard and a Radeon 9800 Pro. The performance will be at least equal to any Prescott-based system, and it'll run quite a bit cooler.
-
I wouldn't go with a P4 anyway - especially not the new prescotts - they have very long stage lengths and that is an immense overhead problem and sums up to be a terrible Ghz to Gips ratio
-
Intel have been playing silly buggers for years at this sort of thing.....
NB: Kaz, what are you referring to by 'stages'?
-
aldo_14: it's a Computer Engineering thing -- points at google
-
Originally posted by Kazan
aldo_14: it's a Computer Engineering thing -- points at google
Oh, for christ sakes. It's not a hard question, and google's a load of pish for this sort of thing (see http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22stages%22&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&btnG=Google+Search&meta= - pain in the arse). And Computer Organization and Design (Patterson & Hennesy) doesn;t mention 'stages' as a standalone keyword in the index either.
I'm simply curious if it's another pipeline problem, or the ole' one from the P3.
EDIT; 30+ stages? fer Christ sake.............
-
yes it's a pipeline problem
-
Sound's like the same basic pipeline problem as the P3.... that had about 20 IIRC, presumably to increase the MHz & fool the consumers..... now, we never did hyperthreading when I did CAD (wasn;t around then), but I'd be surprised if they haven't shoved in those extra 10+ largely for the magical 3GHz rating.
-
i though the new prescot had something like 35 stages
-
Originally posted by Kazan
i though the new prescot had something like 35 stages
I dunno....saw 2 sites, one said 30, one 39. 35 seems excessive, regardless (even with possible parallelism - I'll have to check that out sometimes), because IIRc the P3 had something like 20? (16 in the x-box version - presumably MS saw past that particular trick).
I'm actually looking justnow at a graph* showing the maximum reltaive performance for pipelining peaking at 8 stages..... and dropping thereafter. Which kinda puts intels' little tricks in context.
*based on one from a paper called "Optimal Pipelining in supercomputers" (Krunkel & Smith) from 1986, natch.
-
Wouldn't go for a Dell for that matter. Dell is joined at the hip to Intel and will probably never get around to releasing a chip made by any other company.
-
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,3973,1478837,00.asp
little thing on the new Intel chips that may be of interest.
-
Hmm... seems Dell may end up making computers with Opterons and A64s: http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=14426