Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: J3Vr6 on August 18, 2004, 08:53:00 am
-
Alright, it's high-time I get rid of my old Geforce 2. I've been looking online for good prices, and I just can't afford a 9800 XT 256MB right now.
I've found a Sapphire ATI 9800 Pro 256 MB for $245.
I've also found a Sapphire ATI 9600 XT 256 MB for $145.
Now, I won't be able to buy another video card (or another computer for that matter) for a loooong time after buying one. I understand that a Pro can be flashed to an XT, but I find different websites giving conflicting information on which card can do it (something to do with the memory) or problems that could occur.
Which one would u guys get? And give a reason, there's no point to post if you have none :) Are the benefits of a 9800 Pro compared to an ATI 9600 XT worth the extra $100?
Alright, discuss! If you please me, I'll pay you like a prostitute.
-
lol
I'm looking at the same problem myself.
The 9800 Pro is supposedly still meant to be better, (faster clock speed). But I dunno.
I think I'd probably go the 9600XT due to the fact that its an XT, plus it probably comes with a HL2 voucher. :)
-Grug
-
You know, this is almost exactly what I've been wondering, except I have the 9800 Pro 128 in mind because the 256 is way too expensive. How do they compare?
-
From what I can see, the 9800 has 8 pipelines instead of 4 in the 9600. Also, the 9800 is 256-bit while the 9600 is 128 bit.
Both cards come w/ the half life 2 coupon.
What do people get when it's an XT instead of a Pro?
-
9800 Pro specs (http://www.ati.com/products/radeon9800/radeon9800pro/specs.html)
9600 Pro/XT specs (http://www.ati.com/products/radeon9600/radeon9600pro/specs.html)
Performance wise, 9800 Pro is better. Now that X800's have came, I think you could find 9800 XT's in reasonable price.
-
I couldn't find an 9800 XT for less than $340 so that's not an option :)
-
What? Why would anyone choose the 9600 over the 9800, that makes no sense whatsoever. Unless it's a 9800 SE it's going to blitz a 9600 XT, SE, or Pro easily. No contest.
Also, the performance gain from an XT is close to negligible so don't concern yourself with them. 9800 Pro all the way.
-
In the price/performance stakes alone I'd have to agree - the 9800 Pro is by far the best bang for buck card you're going to find on the market right now.
Other than that you're going to start looking at the current top-end cards and that's where it gets pricey. If you can afford to stretch then you'll be good for a long ways into the future - or the 9800 Pro will sort you out for a while to come (including Doom 3 - trust me - and probably Half Life 2 as well).
-
I would go for the 9800 PRO. Because it's going to last you longer than the 9600 and perform better.
The 9800 is an 8 texture pipeline chip and it has a 256bit memory interface. The 9600 is hindered by its 128bit memory interface.
I just got my hand on a 9800PRO 256 because firstly, they are at a decent price point now and my system specs are too low to bother buying a higher end card anyways (and I couldn't afford a better one right now). Some 9800 Pro's can be modded to 9800XT's if you want to do that (check out rojak's guide).
For me, I got this card because it was the best option for my system, and the 256MB (because my comp only has 386MB of RAM, and this will help me out a bit more with future games and all the new eyecandy for FSO) of memory will make sure that It will last me for a long while (it has to cause I can only get a new vidcard every 4 years or so, and IMHO, it's not worth getting one more often, but other's would disagree.) While I won't be able to play at insane resolutions (my 17inch monitor is limited to 1280x1024 anyways).
Ok, I'll shut up now. :)
Cheers!
-
[color=66ff00]Have to agree with Kalfireth here, I have a 9800 pro 128MB and it holds up quite well when playing Doom 3 on 1024*768 at medium detail level, it would do better if not for the Doom 3 engine being coded primarily for Nvidia cards.
The 9800 should be excellent for Half Life 2, the game has been coded to take advantage of the card's architecture.
[/color]
-
Thanks guys... That helps a ton... Now, to pay u guys like prostitutes:
*opens passenger door, plants foot squarely on your ribs and pushes hard* "GIT OUT MA CAR HO!" :)
-
Glad it helped :)
(As an afterthought Maeg raised a point - even if he didn't realise he was doing it ;))
The rest of your system can also mean the difference between a good platform for gaming and a poor one. RAM is very important for some games these days - not to mention a good sound card for sound intensive games (the less work your CPU has to do with sound - the more it can do with making things run well).
I could do with more RAM in my system but overall it's quite well balanced (for now) - so Doom 3 runs like a charm at high (not ultra-high) detail.
Suffice to say - a top-of-the-line graphics card will run games well - but the rest of your system will be a bottleneck if it's not current tech (over 512 of DDR RAM, an Audigy sound card or better, a 2GHz CPU or better) are all necessary to run the latest games at their very best. If you've got all that then that's cool - and you can ignore what I said. But if not then it's worth considering before you splash out $300 on a graphics card that will be held back by other sections of the system.
-
I have the 9600xt w/ 256Mb. I love it. It's the only thing keeping this old boat alive.
-
Well, I'll have some bottlenecks I'm gonna be hitting. First off, my agp is only 4x. Not sure if that's gonna be such a big issue, though.
I have 512mb of memory, but it's of the DDR200 variety (I think that's the 1600, correct?) I think. I now it's not the best. It plain sucks.
I have a SB Live! but it hasn't really worked right since the beginning. It seems the games get choppier when EAX is on than when it isn't (its supposedly a driver issue but they have no driver update for me).
I have an AMD 2400xp running at 2000 mhz. If I were to get memory at least of the 2700 variety (333mhz), I could overclock my computer to 2500mhz without any issues (supposedly) besides cooling. My bottle neck there is that my memory is bottoming out b/c of the low mhz in them (it can't match the processors fsb if it's over 133).
I'll be replacing the memory soon to at least 2700, allowing me to overclock. But, I may change my mind and just leave both in and let run at the Gig of memory.
-
UPDATE:
I found out that the 9800pro that was selling for $245 was a 128-bit model :( There was an OEM 9800 pro 256 bit that was selling for like $260, but I don't know what I'd be getting into if I bought an OEM.
So, I may just get the 9600XT unless one of u can change my mind *nudges u all*
-
I love my 9600 xt. Like I said, it's better than the box it's attached to.
You think your bottleneck is bad? I have a Duron! A DURON! Clocked at 601 MHz!
Attached to one single stick of DDR266! Meaning it's in single channel mode! And it's only 128MB!
And I get framerates of 60+ in FSO with max detail! ;7
-
Well I always had decent 30 fps framerates with the SCP after I got the processor and motherboard.
A friend of mine who works at Circuit City is gonna see if he can sell me a visiontek 9600xt 256mb for discounted pricing. If it's like $120, I'm snagging it.
-
Meh - you want convincing?
I just persuaded my rig to run Doom 3 at 1280x1024 resolution in Ultra High detail mode (the one that the latest cards - apparently - struggle with). I'm running a Radeon 9800 Pro.
Ergo - my PC is "teh rock on which all waves shall break"™ ;)
-
Lol, well Doom3 I hear had their requirements a bit too pessimistic when released. There are people with 1 ghz machines running it fine.
-
if you have the money take the 9800 if you dont 9600 XT is fine :)
can run most things at max settings at a decent rate aka 6x AA 16 AF :)
-
Originally posted by J3Vr6
Lol, well Doom3 I hear had their requirements a bit too pessimistic when released. There are people with 1 ghz machines running it fine.
Sure, at 640x480, minimum detail with all effects off and caching as much data as they can.
Or did they not specify that ;)
-
Originally posted by Ashrak
can run most things at max settings at a decent rate aka 6x AA 16 AF :)
I have no idea what you're talking about. But that's ok. Whenver I get a new card I'll figure out what Alcoholics Anonymous has to do with video cards.
-
AA = Anti-aliasing
AF = Anisotropic filtering
-
And that still means nothing to me :p
-
[color=66ff00]I'd advise you to do a bit of research in that case, you're about to shell out a not insubstantial amount of cash for a card. You should at least try to find out what you're getting for your cash.
[/color]
-
I just bought a GeForce FX 5700 LE (256 MB) for $120. It seems to run flawlessly. I would guess its somewhere near the equivalent of a Radeon 9600XT. The only difference I seemed to could find was the core clock speed was higher in the Radeon and the GeForce graphics core could handle 256 bits (I believe thats higher than the 9600.) Well anyway, it works great and I think I did pretty good pricewise. What do you think?