The Best Video Cards for Your Money: November 2006

[elbert]

Nice Sourgrapes but heres the system requirements as to the 2X AGP 9600XT.

Read the link, and stop posting BS.

I don't care what COMPUSA has you believing, Belive me, who knows more about this card than anyone else in the Forum, R9600 series is 4X 8X only, PERIOD. READ ATi's own info.

Seriously, you're like a store clerk at BestBuy or CompUsa, do some research before posting crap.

Look at the link its there in black and white.

Look at my link: ATI > compusa. [/b[

Idjit! :roll:
OK but does the card have to be ATI spec design? If you saying it cant be done then just let me laugh at you now and save yourself some typing. This isnt an ATI card just an ATI GPU. Its a big difference. Just look at gigabyte doing SLI with the 6600 on a single slot before any company even Nvidia. Heres the companys informantion on the card and its the same. Do you know more about the card than Visiontek? For your information im a teacher so guess what in? I teach programming and have been working on PC hardware since the late 70's.
http://www.visiontek.com/products/cards/retail/9600XT.html
In your defence your total correct about ATI video cards.

 

[B-Unit]

Im confused as to why you recomend the 7600GT for AGP when they cant be found. Ive serched everywhere and had almost no luck locating one period, much less in the $175 price range you suggest.

 

[pauldh]

I'll defend the X850XT PE to the death too. It doesn't mean the X850XTPE can outperform a 7600GT.

Actually, the X850XTpe does outperform the 7600GT and also the 7800GS more often than not.
Proof: http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2686&p=9

Anyway, the 7600GT trades blows with the lower clocked X850XT (non platinum).

 

[elbert]

Im confused as to why you recomend the 7600GT for AGP when they cant be found. Ive serched everywhere and had almost no luck locating one period, much less in the $175 price range you suggest.

Sorry but that wasnt me.

 

[pauldh]

PCI under $100
The FX5500 256MB makes for a good upgrade to revive old systems. Counter-Strike: Source averages upward of 38FPS in the lowest settings.

PCI under $130
The X1300 256MB really brings even the old systems back to life. I tested it on an Athlon 500 with 384MB's of RAM with World of Warcraft. Performance equaled a new Emachine T6528, AMD64 3500+ with 512MB and an integrated 6100 GPU.

AGP2X (Motherboards only compatable with 2X AGP GPU's.) Under $100
The 9600XT 256MB is far and away the best choice. Most older systems may require an upgraded PSU to supply enough power to accommodate the 9600XT.
http://www.compusa.com/products/product_info.asp?pfp=BROWSE&N=200105+4294967040&Ne=300752&Ns=display%5Fprice%7C0&product_code=310589&Pn=Xtasy_9600XT_Video_Card

AGP2X (Motherboards only compatable with 2X AGP GPU's.) Under $200
Needs more research as most older Motherboards with only 2x AGP can only support 384MB's.

Sorry to say, those are some of the worst recommendations I have ever seen. The FX5500 stinks. It defaults to DX8.0 in HL2 and Source and would not even be able to crawl if forced to render the DX9.0 path. On the cheap, grab a 9800 pro for $69.99. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16814195027

And I see AGP 2X 9600XT has already been covered.

 

[pauldh]

Good job Cleeve.

 

[B-Unit]

I realize that, replying to your post seemed to be the only real way to add a post. Sry for any confusion.

 

[elbert]

PCI under $100
The FX5500 256MB makes for a good upgrade to revive old systems. Counter-Strike: Source averages upward of 38FPS in the lowest settings.

PCI under $130
The X1300 256MB really brings even the old systems back to life. I tested it on an Athlon 500 with 384MB's of RAM with World of Warcraft. Performance equaled a new Emachine T6528, AMD64 3500+ with 512MB and an integrated 6100 GPU.

AGP2X (Motherboards only compatable with 2X AGP GPU's.) Under $100
The 9600XT 256MB is far and away the best choice. Most older systems may require an upgraded PSU to supply enough power to accommodate the 9600XT.
http://www.compusa.com/products/product_info.asp?pfp=BROWSE&N=200105+4294967040&Ne=300752&Ns=display%5Fprice%7C0&product_code=310589&Pn=Xtasy_9600XT_Video_Card

AGP2X (Motherboards only compatable with 2X AGP GPU's.) Under $200
Needs more research as most older Motherboards with only 2x AGP can only support 384MB's.

Sorry to say, those are some of the worst recommendations I have ever seen. The FX5500 stinks. It defaults to DX8.0 in HL2 and Source and would not even be able to crawl if forced to render the DX9.0 path. On the cheap, grab a 9800 pro for $69.99. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16814195027

And I see AGP 2X 9600XT has already been covered.
True and unfortunatly thats the best options when dealing with those limited mobo's.

 

[pauldh]

I realize there are slim pickings in PCI, just think $100 on any FX5500 is a waste of money. To think $100 is a 6600GT in AGP or a 7600GT in PCI-e.

 

[elbert]

I realize there are slim pickings in PCI, just think $100 on any FX5500 is a waste of money. To think $100 is a 6600GT in AGP or a 7600GT in PCI-e.

Yes its bad but the FX5500 can be had as low as $40. You have to also look at giving up upto a P4 in some cases and or up to GB of RAM which can be equally depressing. Its slim pickings on buy a new mobo for those items as you'll mostly be stuck with a choice of and outdated AGP8X mobo.

 

[elbert]

I realize that, replying to your post seemed to be the only real way to add a post. Sry for any confusion.

No problem!

 

[TheGreatGrapeApe]

B) suggestion I guess PCI GPU's are a tax right off.

Nah just a foolish purchase like your foolish prattle. PCI for anything is a waste of money when current high end integrated graphics will generally game better than anything in the $100 range. So you recommendation like the previous one is ignorant at best. Also the X1300 is also now under $100 as well.

OK but does the card have to be ATI spec design?

Yep, unless the OEM partner makes their own cards with additional hardware (and cost) outside the refernce designs, which Visiontek doesn't. Heck when the R9600 cam out Visiontek was still coming out of restructuring, not building cards.

If you saying it cant be done then just let me laugh at you now and save yourself some typing. This isnt an ATI card just an ATI GPU.

The ATi VPU is what controls the signalling voltage, so without a bridge chip it's stuck at the reference design. And follows the following list I linked to;

Do you know more about the card than Visiontek?

Probably not more than their engineers, but likely more than their PR guys, just like anyother company's non-tech PR guys, even ATi's and nV's. But like I said ATi's info trumps all you can post 3 OEM card partners, but since Visiontek's card was was made by Sapphire then there's no chance that it differs that far from the reference design. The only other R9600 makers, TUL, didn't supply Visiontek and their reference design is also 4X 8X. So tell me how or even why they would go outside the reference design so much. And who made this special board for them? :roll:

I dare you to e-mail Visiontek or better yet ATi to ask about it.
Heck even reviewers Fuk it up;
http://www.tomshardware.com/2003/03/06/strike_force/page5.html

For your information im a teacher so guess what in?

Obviously not English despite your pedantic focus on typos.
This sentend of your just makes your nitpicking of my office typing laughable;

"He's a good kid and I want him to have what other kids his age has. I regrete in a way getting him addicted to PC's. On the upside he saves part (of) his snack money to pay this World of Warcraft month fee so I know hes not spending it on drugs."

Freakin' Glass house buddye!

I teach programming

Ah so English is you Second language after Fortran. :roll:
Don't preach about style when yours sucks, and your content is worse.

Also this has less to do with programming than electrical engineering.

and have been working on PC hardware since the late 70's.

So? I've had personal computers since the 70s, and been using them since before then, your working with them doesn't mean you know anything about other hardware, and your recommendations show you should stick to software not hardware bud. :roll:

Fact remains PCI for gaming is ridiculous, and the R9700 (and even R9500Pro) beats the R9600 series for the under $100 pricetag, and unlike your recommendation the R9700 series and 9500Pro are both listed as 2X AGP compliant by ATi, not trying to guess if the PR guys who cut-pasted together the OEM third party partner's website got the description right or not. Either way your recommendations like your information is flawed throughout and do nothing but cloud the issue.

 

[elbert]

Lot of BS there but no hard information saying Visiontek's 9600XT can't work on 2X. Saying the GPU only uses 1.5V and 0.8 is weak as it only points to what the chip requires. The point your making would mean that the mobo couldnt use !.5V or 0.8 as it doesnt come from the PSU. Please tell use how the mobo can change the volts while the video card cant? :roll:

While true Fortran doesn't assembly does.

 

[TheGreatGrapeApe]

Lot of BS there but no hard information saying Visiontek's 9600XT can't work on 2X.

Other than ATi's spec.

Saying the GPU only uses 1.5V and 0.8 is weak as it only points to what the chip requires. The point your making would mean that the mobo couldnt use !.5V or 0.8 as it doesnt come from the PSU. Please tell use how the mobo can change the volts while the video card cant? :roll:

Except for unlike the AGP slot, the PSU isn't sending information along with the power. The AGP port is chip-to-chip bus, and without a bridge it can't change voltage without affecting the signal. Same issue confronting Rialto and HSI bridges.

You can hide behind Visiontek's typo (actually more like cut and paste of minimm specs for Windows more than physical requirements) all you want, but your advice still stinks despite all your supposed 'credentials'.

 

[pauldh]

http://ati.amd.com/products/certified/visiontek.html

ATI lists the Visiontek 9600XT as 4X/8X, although they list the Visiontek 9800 pro as 2x/4x/8x. I thought 2X support ended with the 9500 pro/9700 pro.

 

[elbert]

Lot of BS there but no hard information saying Visiontek's 9600XT can't work on 2X.

Other than ATi's spec.

Saying the GPU only uses 1.5V and 0.8 is weak as it only points to what the chip requires. The point your making would mean that the mobo couldnt use !.5V or 0.8 as it doesnt come from the PSU. Please tell use how the mobo can change the volts while the video card cant? :roll:

Except for unlike the AGP slot, the PSU isn't sending information along with the power. The AGP port is chip-to-chip bus, and without a bridge it can't change voltage without affecting the signal. Same issue confronting Rialto and HSI bridges.

You can hide behind Visiontek's typo (actually more like cut and paste of minimm specs for Windows more than physical requirements) all you want, but your advice still stinks despite all your supposed 'credentials'.
You cant hide behide ATI's GPU Voltage and no hard information stating Visiontek is wrong.

 

[TheGreatGrapeApe]

Other than the people who make the chip and the reference design saying they're wrong, I don't thin I need anything more.

You prove to everyone here that you are correct and that the 9600 does indeed support 2X unlike ATi says.

I say you're just as wrong as Visiontek, because without complex power circuitry like a level translator/shifter involved in a costly bridge, it's not going to change voltage and it'll fry the chip, and without the leveler you'rr simply going to disrupt the information.

While it would easily be possible to 'prove' you wrong, I don't really need the proof since just like there's technically no proof of Black Holes just alot of things that point to that conclusion with 99.99% certainty, it's 99.99% certain that you and Visiontek are both wrong, and people should steer clear of you both. :!:

 

[elbert]

Other than the people who make the chip and the reference design saying they're wrong, I don't thin I need anything more.

You prove to everyone here that you are correct and that the 9600 does indeed support 2X unlike ATi says.

I say you're just as wrong as Visiontek, because without complex power circuitry like a level translator/shifter involved in a costly bridge, it's not going to change voltage and it'll fry the chip, and without the leveler you'rr simply going to disrupt the information.

While it would easily be possible to 'prove' you wrong, I don't really need the proof since just like there's technically no proof of Black Holes just alot of things that point to that conclusion with 99.99% certainty, it's 99.99% certain that you and Visiontek are both wrong, and people should steer clear of you both. :!:

The visiontek is a old card if their requirements were wrong dont you think they would have been sued. I think theres a goverment agency to protect us from companies giving false information. Any rate by now they would have been force to change their requirements if they were wrong.

 

[TheGreatGrapeApe]

The visiontek is a old card if their requirements were wrong dont you think they would have been sued. I think theres a goverment agency to protect us from companies giving false information. Any rate by now they would have been force to change their requirements if they were wrong.

That's pretty naive of you, and not how the government works. First you need to have a complaint that will hold up in court, and I can tell you by Visiontek's description, they never say it works in an AGP 1X 2X slot (the only one that is 3.3V [and 5v] alone and not 1.5v), because a universal AGP (1X, 2x / 4x) would work on the 4X, plus an AGP 1.5V slot (2X / 4X) would also work on the 1.5v 4X) and then of course the Universal 3.0 they also listed would work, plus AGP Pro versions. So legally they'd be covered.

Now you're relying on the government interference in an industry that they thin is providing this information to us 'by tubes' as a defence?

Are you going to sue them based on their description? Do you thin thejustice department is going to sue them based on that description?

Yeah sure, this based on 'you think there's a government agency', unless it's advertised on traditional mediums, you'd even have difficulty claiming false advertising.

You obviously haven't dealth with hardware nor hardware sites much.

Either way your reasoning is weak dude.

 

[Whizzard9992]

Honestly it doesn't really matter if it's 2x compatable.... His foundationm for defending the card in the first place is flawed.

You can get a 965 mobo and a celery chip for less than the price of that card, and you'd probably get better performance from the integrated gfx.

Investing in a PCI card is like investing in a VCR.

 

[TheGreatGrapeApe]

Exactly, thanks for bringing focus back to me again. 8)

Oh, yeah GO BRUNS! :twisted:

 

[enewmen]

I will like to see a X1950 GT with 48 pixel shaders and slower (than the X1900 XT) 256 meg, 256-bit RAM.
Maybe after DX10 comes out.
Such a board will be a lot faster than the X1950 Pro and cost about $300 I guess.
Just thinking, blah blah blah.

 

[enewmen]

TGGA:
You know why the 7600 GT is fast? I didn't buy it because I can't believe it's fast with ONLY 12 pixel shaders and ONLY a 128-bit bus.
What am I missing?
Thanks.

 

[TheGreatGrapeApe]

Well depends on how you count the shaders.

The GF7600GT has 12 shader units but they are composed of 2 full ALUs, not a Full and Mini, unlike previous designs, so it's close to has more calculation strength per shader being able to to 2 full FLOPs, but the X1650XT has a different design with 24 shaders with 1 full and 1 mini ALU (MADD / ADD), but it still lacks texture unit strength and fewer ROPs with 8 each. The GF7600GT has 12 TMUs and also 8 ROPs.

So in older titles you would expect the GF7600GT to do well, and in newer titles you'd expec the X1650XT to pull ahead under shader heavy games where texture load isn't as big an issue, and the ROPs on a more traditional design are waiting to be filled.

It's hard to compare directly which is why the results jump around. But they're both solid cards.

 

[enewmen]

Thanks for the info. I undrestand better and can sleep better now.