Choosing

[Guest]

I have decided to get a new grpahics card; my TNT2 which came with my Dell PC is decidly poo. Well, for gaming. I play games such as Counter-Strike, and other first person shooters, and I want to buy a card that will be able to cope for the next two years (well, being hopeful!), and I will still be able to play any game I chose at a decent FPS. Games such as Red Fraction, Global Ops, Max Payne, and nice looking stuff lile that, and more, will probably be my choice. I would obviuoly like to spend as little money as possible, but to fit my wants I know I will have to pay quite a bit. I have been looking at a Geforce 2, and I am wondering whether that would last for 2 years. Or the Geforce 3, which is very expensive. I have not reallly looked at Ati's cards, as I have heard so much about Geforce. As an after thought, I have a p700, 128ram, 20gig hard drive; Will I need to update anything else to keep my PC going through the next years? Thanks for reading,
Xion

 

[Crashman]

The Geforce2 GTS is a great card for speed. The Geforce 3 is faster, but the real difference you get with the GeForce 3 is new features that improve visual quality. I would go for the GTS right now, it should last you 2 years. You might find a Geforce PRO for the same price, but make sure you get one with 5ns or 5.5ns memory if you are looking in that direction.
You can also increase the speed of your CPU to 933, using a trick I described in the CPU forum. If you need specific information concerning that trick, PM me with an email address and I will send you a graph of the pins and directions.

Cast not thine pearls before the swine

 

[Guest]

Cheers crash - 1 question - What about the ULTRA?

 

[Crashman]

Right now, the Ultra cost about $100 more than the GTS, that's why I suggested the GTS. For $100 more than the Ultra, you can get the GF3. The visual quality of the GF3 with new (optomised) software makes it a bigger improvement over the Ultra, than the Ultra is over the GTS. But because these are all so expensive, I suggest the GTS, which has all the speed you really need. Or the Pro if you can get it with better memory for a similar price as the GTS. Some Pros are comming with GTS memory, negating the difference.

Cast not thine pearls before the swine

 

[Guest]

Cheers for advice - so you dont think that the games coming out will need all the GF3's features - vertex shader etc.? O - im ukish, and I dont suppose you can give me adive for buying a card online? Are auctions good, or ...? Ty,

 

[Crashman]

Those extra features would be nice to have but not needed and prbably not worth the extra money right now. I usually track down what I want on Pricewatch.

Cast not thine pearls before the swine

 

[rd382]

ive seen gf2 ultras that are only $50 less then a GF3

<font color=green>I can draw tyte give me the damn crayon!</font color=green>

 

[Guest]

If you are concerned about money why are you talking GF3 and GF2 Ultra?
Smack for the money is the Geforce MX 200 or the Kyro 2! Put the rest of your money in the bank. Because only the future will tell what is the best card next year. Geforce 3 features may not even be that great, it remains to be seen...

Kyro-2 is almost as fast as Geforce-2 GTS, but much cheaper.

PS avoid MX cards with DDR-RAM they are actually slower than SD-RAM versions! Go for MX-200 the MX-400 looks like a marketing trick! Unless the price is the same of course.

---
Engage!

 

[noko]

MX200 is a bad choice due to having 64 bit ram, making it 40-60% slower then a MX or a MX400. Especially for around $20 more you can get a DDR 32meg 128bit Radeon LE that would perform better than any MX card. The MX and MX400 will give decent performance due to having 128 bit data path ram. Still the Kyro2 would be faster in most games, much faster than the MX's and just as fast or faster then the GTS in a number of games also slower in others. Radeon has high IQ (image quality) that is hard to beat and fast speed. I subject you scope out the different reviews of these cards especially the latter reviews. I own a Radeon 64 and I couldn't be more satisfied, also I am waiting for a MX400 card for a second system. Why MX400 you may ask, Linux is the answer, seems that the Nvidia cards support Linux the best now days. Two years is a long time, GF3 is best beat for two years still a Radeon or GF2 should last relatively long, the Kyro2 should last at least a year in which I think the real T&L games will really start taking a toll on the card. Also recommend you check out the Radeon LE review at AnAndTech, as far as I am concern that is the best bang for the buck, 32meg DDR 128 bit ram on a more DX8 hardware ready then a GF2 chip coming in an unheard of price of $70. Check it out here:

<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=1473" target="_new">http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=1473</A>

Next best bang for the buck as far as I am concern is the Kyro2 for $112 here in the states. Just remember each card has advantages and disadvantages, so by telling us more on what you like to do or want to do I think we can recommend maybe a better solution for you.