9600 or wait

[JB]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

I just bought a new Dell bargain system that I'm going to upgrade
right away. It has a cheapo GeForce 5200 video card, so I want to
replace it. Do you think I should go with RADEON 9600 or wait for
something else?

Also, this is an 8300 system I got for about $500. I have an Audigy 2
card and a few other things I'll be adding, but -- is there anything
else on the 8300 that I should consider replacing?

- JB

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

"JB" <jbrandonbb@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:45ac3713.0406221246.20f25ab3@posting.google.com...
> I just bought a new Dell bargain system that I'm going to upgrade
> right away. It has a cheapo GeForce 5200 video card, so I want to
> replace it. Do you think I should go with RADEON 9600 or wait for
> something else?
>
> Also, this is an 8300 system I got for about $500. I have an Audigy 2
> card and a few other things I'll be adding, but -- is there anything
> else on the 8300 that I should consider replacing?
>
> - JB

As I've written before, it would be foolish to spend more than about $100
maximum on a video card right now, with PCI Express coming out before your
next upgrade. Keep the 5200, as it's not likely you'd get something
significantly better for less than a hundred bucks. If you plan to keep the
system for at least two years, add another stick of 512MB of RAM from
www.crucial.com

That should do it. -Dave

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

"JB" wrote:
> I just bought a new Dell bargain system that I'm going to upgrade
> right away. It has a cheapo GeForce 5200 video card, so I want to
> replace it. Do you think I should go with RADEON 9600 or wait for
> something else?

The only thing you will be waiting for is for prices to drop in existing AGP cards; if you are wanting
better performance in a game now, then upgrade now. If you aren't sure then wait; in the meantime prices
on existing stock will likely decline.

If it was *my* computer, since I game, yeah, I would upgrade right away, probably with a 9800PRO.

Jon

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

"Dave C." <mdupre@sff.net> said:

> As I've written before, it would be foolish to spend more than about
> $100 maximum on a video card right now, with PCI Express coming out
> before your next upgrade.

This is just silly advice. When AGP came out there was significant overlap
before AGP showed a significant performance advantage over PCI. In fact,
the first generation of AGP cards were slower than than their PCI
counterparts. It will be one, maybe two years, after PCI-E makes it debut
before it's advantages are taken advantage of. You don't know when the guy
is going to upgrade to a PCI-E system so telling him to sit tight on a
5200 is just foolish.
--
Mac Cool

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

jbrandonbb@hotmail.com (JB) said:

> It has a cheapo GeForce 5200 video card, so I want to
> replace it. Do you think I should go with RADEON 9600 or wait for
> something else?

Don't listen to Dave, his wife makes his computer buying decisions anyway.
Whether you replace the 5200 depends on what you play. The 9600 is about
30% faster in most games, but it isn't fast enough for games like Far Cry
and who knows how it will perform in Doom3 or HL2.

Dave is right about one thing, the 9600 is about your only choice for ~
$100 and I don't know if it's a significant enough upgrade to bother with.
The 9700 & 9800s will come down in price this fall and you might want to
wait a few months. Keep an eye on newegg.com's refurbished section, they
have good deals once in a while.
--
Mac Cool

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

> The 9600 is about
> 30% faster in most games, but it isn't fast enough for games like Far Cry
> and who knows how it will perform in Doom3 or HL2.

Just another data point - I play Far Cry with a 5200 ultra and it runs
smooth at 1024x768. The only thing I've had to do is turn down shadow
and fog to low settings. Other than that the game runs very nicely.

I use an XP 3000+ and a gig of Geil ultra RAM.

 

[JB]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Mac Cool <Mac@2cool.com> wrote in message news:<Xns9510E170499A9MacCool@24.25.9.42>...
> jbrandonbb@hotmail.com (JB) said:
>
> > It has a cheapo GeForce 5200 video card, so I want to
> > replace it. Do you think I should go with RADEON 9600 or wait for
> > something else?
>
> Don't listen to Dave, his wife makes his computer buying decisions anyway.
> Whether you replace the 5200 depends on what you play. The 9600 is about
> 30% faster in most games, but it isn't fast enough for games like Far Cry
> and who knows how it will perform in Doom3 or HL2.

How much faster would a 9800 be -- what percentage?

Yeah, I play tons of games and will be in line to get HL2.

- JB

 

[JB]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

David Besack <daveREMOVEbesack@mac.com> wrote in message news:<cbb8no$796q$1@netnews.upenn.edu>...
> > The 9600 is about
> > 30% faster in most games, but it isn't fast enough for games like Far Cry
> > and who knows how it will perform in Doom3 or HL2.
>
> Just another data point - I play Far Cry with a 5200 ultra and it runs
> smooth at 1024x768. The only thing I've had to do is turn down shadow
> and fog to low settings. Other than that the game runs very nicely.
>
Speaking of getting games to play their best, I read that the 5200 is
the cheapest card that supports DX9, which makes me think that's why
Dell includes it. And DX9 games like Doom3 are just around the croner.
But that the 5200 is really too slow to keep up and won't work that
great. Then there's the new X800 and NVidia 6800 cards that seem way
too expensive. The 9800 seems like a good compromise.

Really, I'm looking for graphics similar to what you get with
Chronicles of Riddick for Xbox with dynamic per-pixel lighting, normal
mapping, etc. I have yet to see anything that even comes close to the
realism in that game on PC. I have Unreal T 04 sitting here waiting to
be played, though. My old computer has a RADEON 8500, doesn't seem
fast enough...

What other DX9 games are out there?

- JB

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

jbrandonbb@hotmail.com (JB) said:

> How much faster would a 9800 be -- what percentage?

A 9800XT would be about 4X (400%) faster than a 5200, 2X faster than a
9600, using Far Cry as a benchmark; Halo is even more demandingqq. The
9600 is about as fast as a Geforce4 Ti4200.
--
Mac Cool

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

jbrandonbb@hotmail.com (JB) said:

> David Besack <daveREMOVEbesack@mac.com> wrote in message
> news:<cbb8no$796q$1@netnews.upenn.edu>...
>> > The 9600 is about
>> > 30% faster in most games, but it isn't fast enough for games like
>> > Far Cry and who knows how it will perform in Doom3 or HL2.
>>
>> Just another data point - I play Far Cry with a 5200 ultra and it
>> runs smooth at 1024x768. The only thing I've had to do is turn down
>> shadow and fog to low settings. Other than that the game runs very
>> nicely.

David, your post didn't show on RR so I can reply directly... The last
benchmarks on Far Cry that I saw, put the 9600 at about 33 FPS and the
5200U at about 26 FPS at 1024x768, so even with things turned down, the
5200 is very marginal for Far Cry, forget about Halo.

> Speaking of getting games to play their best, I read that the 5200 is
> the cheapest card that supports DX9, which makes me think that's why
> Dell includes it.

If I'm not mistaken, the 9800XT is an option for the 8300, or it used to
be.

> And DX9 games like Doom3 are just around the
> croner. But that the 5200 is really too slow to keep up and won't
> work that great. Then there's the new X800 and NVidia 6800 cards that
> seem way too expensive. The 9800 seems like a good compromise.

Personally, I wouldn't buy a card now to play Doom3 or HL2 because as
soon as those games come out there will be a plethora of cards optimized
for them. Cards you buy today, including the 9800, will be forgotten in
6-8 months. If you plan on playing Doom3 & HL2, then I would be tempted
to wait until Christmas to buy a card.

> Really, I'm looking for graphics similar to what you get with
> Chronicles of Riddick for Xbox with dynamic per-pixel lighting,
> normal mapping, etc. I have yet to see anything that even comes close
> to the realism in that game on PC.

I have the demo sitting here but haven't played it yet, I've heard it's
damn nice. I'm anxious to see it on my hdtv.

> I have Unreal T 04 sitting here
> waiting to be played, though. My old computer has a RADEON 8500,
> doesn't seem fast enough...

I downloaded the demo and could never get it to run stable so I didn't
buy the game. Only deathmatch would work, any other mode would lock up
the computer. I might pick it up used. I using a G4 Ti4200 and the demo
looked great while it was running.
--
Mac Cool

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

depends if you mean a 9600, a 9600SE, a 9600 PRO, a 9600XT. check
www.tomshardware.com for comparisons - they're quite startling.

ric


"Mac Cool" <Mac@2cool.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9510E170499A9MacCool@24.25.9.42...
> jbrandonbb@hotmail.com (JB) said:
>
> > It has a cheapo GeForce 5200 video card, so I want to
> > replace it. Do you think I should go with RADEON 9600 or wait for
> > something else?
>
> Don't listen to Dave, his wife makes his computer buying decisions anyway.
> Whether you replace the 5200 depends on what you play. The 9600 is about
> 30% faster in most games, but it isn't fast enough for games like Far Cry
> and who knows how it will perform in Doom3 or HL2.
>
> Dave is right about one thing, the 9600 is about your only choice for ~
> $100 and I don't know if it's a significant enough upgrade to bother with.
> The 9700 & 9800s will come down in price this fall and you might want to
> wait a few months. Keep an eye on newegg.com's refurbished section, they
> have good deals once in a while.
> --
> Mac Cool

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

"Mac Cool" <Mac@2cool.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9510DE807C8CBMacCool@24.25.9.42...
> "Dave C." <mdupre@sff.net> said:
>
> > As I've written before, it would be foolish to spend more than about
> > $100 maximum on a video card right now, with PCI Express coming out
> > before your next upgrade.
>
> This is just silly advice. When AGP came out there was significant overlap
> before AGP showed a significant performance advantage over PCI. In fact,
> the first generation of AGP cards were slower than than their PCI
> counterparts. It will be one, maybe two years, after PCI-E makes it debut
> before it's advantages are taken advantage of. You don't know when the guy
> is going to upgrade to a PCI-E system so telling him to sit tight on a
> 5200 is just foolish.
> --
> Mac Cool

You are right when you claim that early PCI Express cards won't offer
significant performance improvements over AGP cards. However, the
performance of AGP compared to PCI Express is a moot point. It has nothing
to do with the reason why you shouldn't buy an expensive AGP card right now.
The change from PCI to AGP was a lot different than the change from AGP to
PCI express will be. The reason is simple. Virtually all motherboards with
AGP slots also had at least one PCI slot, so you could continue to use your
PCI video card after upgrading your motherboard, if you wanted to. And many
people did just that! There is only one chipmaker (via) who plans to offer
a chipset that supports both AGP and PCI Express on the same motherboard.
Note that there is no guarantee that this dual-format chipset will catch on
with the major motherboard makers. In any case, even if several motherboard
makers DO go with the via dual-format chipset, you will be stuck buying a
VIA chipset board if you want to use your AGP video card on your next
upgrade.

So the reason not to spend a lot of money on an AGP card right now is that
you won't be ABLE to use it on your next system, unless you want to severely
limit your choice of components in building your next system.

It's not foolish at all to advise the OP to sit tight on a 5200. If he buys
anything to replace it right now, he will be buying a third video card in
less than two years, maximum. That's about as long as the average desktop
system lasts before being replaced or (upgraded to the point where there are
no original major components left). -Dave

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

"Dave C." <mdupre@sff.net> said:

> It's not foolish at all to advise the OP to sit tight on a 5200. If
> he buys anything to replace it right now, he will be buying a third
> video card in less than two years, maximum. That's about as long as
> the average desktop system lasts before being replaced or (upgraded
> to the point where there are no original major components left).

Upgrading a vid card every two years has to be expected if you play games.
--
Mac Cool

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

In article <45ac3713.0406221246.20f25ab3@posting.google.com>, jbrandonbb@hotmail.com (JB) wrote:
>I just bought a new Dell bargain system that I'm going to upgrade
>right away. It has a cheapo GeForce 5200 video card, so I want to
>replace it. Do you think I should go with RADEON 9600 or wait for
>something else?
>
>Also, this is an 8300 system I got for about $500. I have an Audigy 2
>card and a few other things I'll be adding, but -- is there anything
>else on the 8300 that I should consider replacing?
>
>- JB


You can get a ATI "ATI RETAIL BRAND" 9800Pro for Under $220

 

[JB]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Mac Cool <Mac@2cool.com> wrote in message news:<Xns951170961410MacCool@24.25.9.43>...

> Personally, I wouldn't buy a card now to play Doom3 or HL2 because as
> soon as those games come out there will be a plethora of cards optimized
> for them. Cards you buy today, including the 9800, will be forgotten in
> 6-8 months. If you plan on playing Doom3 & HL2, then I would be tempted
> to wait until Christmas to buy a card.
>
So you would stick with the 5200 and wait for a better card this
winter? The thing is, I do want to get Far Cry, Unreal T04, and a few
other games running fast now. I have a RADEON 8500 and an Athlon
XP1500 system now and played a few missions in Far Cry until I read
somewhere that I was probably missing out on a lot of graphics stuff
(normal mapping, maybe? -- or dynamic lighting?). Anyway, my new Dell
(comes in today I hope) has a 3 GHz P4 and I'm upgrading it to Audigy
2 Platinum surround right away and adding 512 of RAM. What would be
your guess about how much faster the game would run than the 8500?

I do know this -- I tested out Far Cry on a 64-bit system not long ago
with a 9800XT and it was a night and day difference in terms of
effects, speed, and realism.

- JB

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

jbrandonbb@hotmail.com (JB) said:

> Mac Cool <Mac@2cool.com> wrote in message
>> If you plan on playing Doom3 & HL2, then I
>> would be tempted to wait until Christmas to buy a card.
>>
> So you would stick with the 5200 and wait for a better card this
> winter? The thing is, I do want to get Far Cry, Unreal T04, and a few
> other games running fast now. I have a RADEON 8500 and an Athlon
> XP1500 system now and played a few missions in Far Cry until I read
> somewhere that I was probably missing out on a lot of graphics stuff
> (normal mapping, maybe? -- or dynamic lighting?). Anyway, my new Dell
> (comes in today I hope) has a 3 GHz P4 and I'm upgrading it to Audigy
> 2 Platinum surround right away and adding 512 of RAM. What would be
> your guess about how much faster the game would run than the 8500?

It depends on the game, there are very few benchmarks comparing a 5200
and 8500, but the 8500 is normally a faster card.

Here's what I would do... sell both the 8500 (~$45+) and the 5200 (~$50)
on ebay and buy a used 9500 Pro ~$80-100, there's a bunch on ebay,
should run Far Cry @ 50-60 FPS at 1024x768 with high settings. The 9500
Pro is as fast as a 9600XT and a whole lot cheaper. You break even and
the 9500 Pro should keep you until Christmas, when you'll have a better
perspective on which cards run Doom3 and HL2 the fastest.

Matter o' fact, I might take that advice myself and sell my Ti4200 and
buy a 9500 Pro.

> I do know this -- I tested out Far Cry on a 64-bit system not long
> ago with a 9800XT and it was a night and day difference in terms of
> effects, speed, and realism.

I've done what you're thinking, upgrading in anticipation, more than
once and every time I've been disappointed I didn't wait just a little
while longer. When the new games hit, new cards will come out of the
woodwork and most of them will be faster than what you buy now.
--
Mac Cool

 

[JB]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Mac Cool <Mac@2cool.com> wrote in message news:<Xns9513E2D562B87MacCool@24.25.9.42>...
> jbrandonbb@hotmail.com (JB) said:
>
> > Mac Cool <Mac@2cool.com> wrote in message

>
> It depends on the game, there are very few benchmarks comparing a 5200
> and 8500, but the 8500 is normally a faster card.
>
> Here's what I would do... sell both the 8500 (~$45+) and the 5200 (~$50)
> on ebay and buy a used 9500 Pro ~$80-100, there's a bunch on ebay,
> should run Far Cry @ 50-60 FPS at 1024x768 with high settings. The 9500

Here's an update -- the 5200 seems pretty slow. I tested Thief 3 on my
old computer (athlon 1500, 512 RAM) with the RADEON 8500 and the new
one (a Dell 8300, 1 GB RAM, 3 GHz) with the 5200. It's downright
choppy on the new computer, which is twice as fast and has twice as
much RAM. I have noticed that the desktop and business apps seem a lot
snappier, though.

Is there a way to tell, incidentally, if I have a Pentium 4H or 4
(without the H)? It seems kind of important for video editing and
such.

- JB

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

jbrandonbb@hotmail.com (JB) said:

>> It depends on the game, there are very few benchmarks comparing a
>> 5200 and 8500, but the 8500 is normally a faster card.
>>
>> Here's what I would do... sell both the 8500 (~$45+) and the 5200
>> (~$50) on ebay and buy a used 9500 Pro ~$80-100, there's a bunch on
>> ebay, should run Far Cry @ 50-60 FPS at 1024x768 with high settings.
>> The 9500
>
> Here's an update -- the 5200 seems pretty slow. I tested Thief 3 on
> my old computer (athlon 1500, 512 RAM) with the RADEON 8500 and the
> new one (a Dell 8300, 1 GB RAM, 3 GHz) with the 5200. It's downright
> choppy on the new computer, which is twice as fast and has twice as
> much RAM.

Try putting the 8500 in your new system since it is a faster card. What
do you think of my 9500 Pro suggestion? Or are you going whole hog with
a 9800?

> Is there a way to tell, incidentally, if I have a Pentium 4H or 4
> (without the H)? It seems kind of important for video editing and
> such.

Don't know, sorry.
--
Mac Cool

 

[JB]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Mac Cool <Mac@2cool.com> wrote in message news:<Xns9519D9CE07B62MacCool@24.25.9.42>...
> jbrandonbb@hotmail.com (JB) said:
>

>
> Try putting the 8500 in your new system since it is a faster card. What
> do you think of my 9500 Pro suggestion? Or are you going whole hog with
> a 9800?

I don't know, it's tough -- on Tom's I see that a 9500 128 is actually
slower than my card in Call of Duty. The 9500 Pro is 87, my card is
67, so that's a big leap. But then I look at something like the 9700
Pro at 121 and realize that's almost twice as fast. My *real problem,
though, is that I want to see graphics like Riddick for Xbox -- normal
mapping, dynamic lighting. I see it with the 5200 card no problem --
Thief on my new Dell looks completely different. The 8500 DX8 card is
a major step back, the polygons look like something I was playing in
1999 when I got my first 3DFX card (not really). I doubt I will go
9800 -- a 121 to 131 difference doesn't seem as substantial to me.
Anyway, for now I'm going with a compromise -- the 5200 with DX9
features, but at 800 x 600 and maybe with some detail turned down. I
just don't want to go back the DX8 when 9 is one of the main reasons I
upgraded. And to be honest, I'll probably end up playing more Xbox
until the fall when I see these new games on the shelf and upgrade
then.

And I figured out how to see if I have hyperthreading -- my system
reports two processors.

- JB