[Antares]

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?

[phreak]

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.

[aldo_14]

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.

[Arc]

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.

[Taristin]

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 lurking around.

[Bobboau]

Radeon

[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.

[Nico]

well, if he's gonna pay for it, he might as well get the best of the two
Radeon, btw.

[Liberator]

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.

[HotSnoJ]

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.

[Fractux]

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.

[aldo_14]

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.

[01010]

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.

[Bobboau]

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

[Grug]

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

[Grey Wolf]

The FX 5200 doesn't even hit the same level as the old Ti4200s. 9800 Pro is your best bet out of those 3.

[Setekh]

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.

[Gortef]

I'd go with Radeon... not that it really matters though but

Mainly it's just a matter of taste in the end I suppose

[Xelion]

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. 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.

[Martinus]

[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.
[/color]