Printable View
hi, i'm looking for a good card for my PC. my son will use it to play flight sim x. at the moment its running pretty slow with fsx, but its usable. the specs are;
P4 3.2ghz socket 478- foxconn m/b 865A01 with 8x agp- DDR400 ram 512 mb- XP home- old graphics card.
i'm going tp upgrade the ram to 2 or 3 gb, but i'm not sure which card to go for.
thanks for any help...
It depends a bit on your power supply. If it doesn't provide enough power to the 12V supply, it will rule out certain video cards. An nVidia 6800 or 7600, 8x AGP video card will work OK with a 450W PSU or better and most versions don't need an auxiliary power connector. Other members who prefer ATi can offer suggestions for that route. Make sure the video card you get has active cooling (fan); passive (heatsink) cooling won't cut it with that CPU in the same case.
2GB of RAM for XP Home is more than enough to handle your needs. The other thing to consider is CPU cooling. Socket 478 Pentiums run hot, and if you're doing any gaming you may need something better than a stock Intel cooling unit.
thanks for your reply.
i have a coolmaster 550w ps and a very good cpu fan.
what do you think s the best card for that setup is?
There's no BEST card as such, but several very good cards. If I were choosing a card for that hardware, I'd go with an nVidia 7600GT. I don't know enough about the ATi cards to suggest one, but the 3000 series with DX10 are overkill for the price and the 2000 series run hot and are a lot of $$ to tie up on an older system. Maybe an X1650?
thanks again Lgbpop.
what do you think of this one? Sapphire ATi Radeon HD 3850 512MB GDDR3 AGP DVI Retail.(i know you said that you dont know much about ATi, but its alot more than i know!). i've read that its very good. or is it too powerful for my cpu and might be wasted on my system?
Quite a difference.
http://www23.tomshardware.com/graphi...=716&chart=275
That 3850 draws a max of 65 watts by itself.
7600 GT __ 36Watts
Would you want to drop almost $200 on a video card you can't use in a potential future system? AGP is kind of a dead end, PCI-e is the reigning standard now for newer hardware. Also, DX10 capability is wasted - it's not compatible with XP, only Vista - so unless you put Vista on your system, you're paying for a feature you can't even use. Lastly, if you DO put Vista on your system, it'll never run properly. It'll be a slug.
If your goal is to prolong updating for a year or two, you can do it for $100 or less. It's your call, though.
While that may be true, the 3850 is a MUCH better card than the 7600GTQuote:
Originally Posted by Train
hi again.
i've ordered a card and some ram, but i'm not sure how to install the card.
could someone explain step by step please, or post a link?
cheers
?? not sure which card your talking about. Any video card installs just about the same. AGP slots are usually a bit different then PCI express card slots, but either one you choose, they are not difficult to install.
Always, make sure your computer and power are off when installing first off. Then just take the card and put it into the slot, and press down firmly, making sure it is seated all along the card. PCI Express cards have a two slot thing. One is usually longer then the other,so just look at the PCIE slot on the motherboard, and put the card in as you see it align up.
If your card requires a power plugin, then you will have to have a PSU that has the PCIE plug included. Use that. I gather the higher end cards have the six pin plugin.
For cards like i have now, ( 7600GT ) or similar models for Nvidia or ATI, then they might not need any power hookup at all.
If its a PCIE card, then when you bootup, make sure in bios, you selct the PCIE option and not the PCI or AGP option. Thats it. now just boot the computer and it should recognize the card with no porblems. nothing else to do other then download the latest drivers for the card. LOL
Added personel note: obviously i have that card. ( 7600GT ) , and while we all can comment on what is a bit better or waht have you, i have to give this card a complete five star rating. I play evey single game out today, and even Crysis plays like top dog with vry good FPS and any game looks gorgeous. Only drawback is.., it is not DX110 and only has the 3.0 shader modeling, but that is good enough for most any game, and when i got it, any game old and new looked ten times better. No comparison at all, to anything earlier.
For those who want to spend very little and get alot, then this is the best performer in that price range.
If one can find any about, then get ahoold of a 7900 series card. For PCIE the best bang for medium dollars in PCIE would be wht i'm getting next. The 9600GT. A whole lot more power needed and its a very long card. The 7600GT needs no power hookup and is very short in length. Those are definite pluses.
I have a 7600GT in a machine, and in no way do I consider Crysis playable on that card.
Well, once again Ramone you seem to be the only one.
I'd invite ya over to my apt. to see for yourself, but then again... from all your unbelievable negativity in anything i post..well?
Just what are your machine specs anyway? I put the settings in advanced to medium for all but a couple of aspects, not related to importance and play the game fine.. with little or not slowdowns at all. it looks and plays gorgeous. I'm too honest a person to lie about anything. I had it running at 1280 X 920 and it still plays fine.
Now,,if your the type who thinks that 100 FPS is the norm for a game of this caliber, then thats a little odd. I just know it plays fluidly in all but one level, and thats the winter frozen part. Even in that its very playable.
My specs are 8800GT Q6600@3.1GHz 8GB of ram. And even with those specs, I'm not thrilled about how Crysis runs.
Trust me, i'm not the only one. Few enthusiest will find Crysis plays like "top dog" with a 7600GT. It simply does not have the power. I don't think you're lieing, I just think your expectations and standards are a bit low. I have your card, I don't need to go to your place to see how it runs. You're entitled to your opinion of course, but so am I, and mine is that the 7600GT is not a powerful enough card for games like Crysis. Sure you can turn the settings way down, but that defeats the purpose of a game like Crysis.
We simply have a difference of opinion on the defination of "Plays beautifully" and accceptable frame rates are and I don't want someone spending their money on a card only to unexpectedly have to turn all the settings down to medium and low, not be able to use any form of AA or AF and still experience slowdowns on certain levels. By your own admission, these are the performance characteristics of the game on that card and I don't see how these results equate to "top dog" performance.
My negativity towrads your posts stems from a simple reason, what you post doesn't make complete sense and contradicts itself. I won't bring up past examples but I'm sure you know what I'm refferring to, and here once again, we have a similar (though not qute as extreme) situation.
It plays like top dog... in DX9, with all settings turned down, some to low and still have slowdowns in some levels
You may not see anything wrong with the above statement, but I do. ;)
I'm getting a new video card soon, ( 9600GT 512MB ) so i don't think its the top dog. Maybe a bad choice of words there. lol It just performs well enough for what it is. One drawback is the 12 pixel pipeliens which in todays games probably lacks the punch for visuals somehow, but I'm just saying from waht i see and play onscreen, i'm happy enough till now.
I'd post my onscreen settings but thats useless, as then nobody would believe me.
Of course it has little slowdowns in some phases of this game or that, and esp. in the very highest end games. TBH, i'm amazed at how well it does even now. Just depends upon which high end game we'er talking about.
The reason i keep bringing up 'Crysis'so much is that i just love the game. Some don't and thats alright. Like ya say, everybody is entitled to their own opinion. I've re-played it over seven or eight times now. ( WHATT...? ) , and four times all the way through. In the overall majority of reviews i have read from all over the net, its about one third negative and two thirds five star. Gamespot gave it a 9.5 and thats a pretty good game site. I just do NOT get may if any slowdowns in that game, other then the freeze level, which evryone does, or a bit of the final level, which si about half cenematics, and intensive as all get out. Thats when ya need the higest end V.C.'s. lol
I also want to apologize for how others take my take on things. I understand we all have diff. rigs. and i think ones CPU, specs. and 3D settings have alot to do with it.
Still am puzzles how gamers with like 8800GTX cards and higher CPU then me have issues?? I read another with my CPU that said just what i'm saying. It played perfect for him also. Of ocurse he had a better video card. Enough said.
Oh, and by the way.. where did i post a reply saying DX9 and all that. Ref. please. its DX10 i read where most have issues, and thats Cryteks. issue. Marketing is not always accurate in this industry. We should all know that.
Overall, this is why i'm getting that new card for the AA and AF and faster FPS and all the rest. I just love todays graphics and that is MY area of criticism and personal nature. it should be a huge jump up, esp the pixel shaders, bus speed, etc.. Actually, the V.C. is the only drwback in my rig. Very top notch performing right now. I'm happy enough.
Again, im sorry i write so much and a bit misconstrued at times. I'm a nice guy and forgiving by nature.
This is wayy.. off topic so hopefully after ya respond, if ya do, we can all go on to other topics and stick to the post here. Not fair to the poster of this thread, but i'm sure he's moved on by now. ;)
In terms of playability on crysis a 7800gt would do the job (but very marginally) I would think twice about recommending this or lesser cards for any use but word processing, or similar apps. (or very old games). (I don't have a 7600 but I would not expect it to be significantly better than the 7800).
Likewise the 9600 series appears a bit over rated.
I would recommend looking around at the various G92 based 8800 series cards if gaming is at all important, (they are dropping in price and can be had for less than $200).
Note; these are power intensive boards and should be supported by a minimum of solid 450 to 500 watt supply (recommend sparkle/FSP etc.) with a 6 pin connector vid card power plug. The 9600 series boards would be expected to use a bit less power.
The G80 based 8800 series boards are even cheaper and would still be preferable, IMO, over a 9600 (of similar bandwidth and memory), assuming that you have enough power supply (the coolmaster 550w is unknown to me but coolermaster power suppliers are generally considered to be in the lower performance categories as a general rule).
Even with a 256bus/512 mem G92 8800 don't expect great Crysis performance but it should allow medium graphics, with some setting at high, and normal native resolutions on many/most 19" lcd monitors, at minimum to fair frame rates (25+).
I recently switched to a 256/512, G92, 8800GTS and it is good in crysis but not great. Crysis is known to be GPU intensive but can be played adequately on even single core CPUs if they are backed by a moderately good vid card. Even my old AMD3700/7800GT machine will play it though the frame rate is occasionally distractingly poor.
Enjoy!
LOL. I've been trying to study these card differences, like the 8800GT which uses that GPU die and the 9600 series which i cannot remember what it uses, but the specs. just looked impressive enough for my tastes. Both a huge cards and consume some power, ( six pin PSU connector ). ( no its not better then a 7800 series card so rest at ease there.. just some things more updated.it pushes the 12 Pixel pipelines to the limit I suspect )
I have indeed been going over whether to get a card that is now already a previous generation, although it gets like five star and very little if any negatives from all of the gaming commmunity. A bit more power needed is one of the main points for some.
What should be noted is.., i tend to get things in my price range that will produce what i need, and then some. So many choices out there for all, which is great.
One thing i've decided upon for the 9600GT card if selected, is i'm getting the 512 version OC'ed if still avail. early this next month. A few FPS would not be all that noticable to me or tohers i suspect, given its very close to the 8800GT. At those rates for specs, one has to wonder if another $20-30.00 is worth it. The 9600GT is more present tech. with whatever included. very hihg bus speeds and alot more pixel shaders and or pipelines then what i have now.
Funny thing ot me is if i can play 'Crysis' on medium settings decently with this card, and I CAN, then i'm looking forward to seeing for myself what alot better card will do. Only thing i turned off is dynamic lighting, which doesn't give a hoot as it looks gorgeous, and yes much better then low settings.
I wonder if the AMD higher end CPU's play this game better then the C2 Duals? I've read a few with my CPU that play it and have excellent results. Only use 2X though,but who cares. Too much is not needed from what i see. Using a Acer 22" widescreen and even have it pumped to 1280 X960 and plays great.
Nice info HJ. Thks for that.
I guess this thread should be close as it is now offically totally hijacked. My bad :eek: :r ;)
I'll see if I can consolidate the confusing GPU issue between the 8800, 9600 and the 9800 series.
The 8800 (GT and others) started out with the G80 series Gpu (112 streaming processors max (some/most were lower, 96 processors), highest power consumption).
Then last November/December Nvidia brought out the G92 chip which was dropped into some 8800 series boards by some makers (128 streaming processors (max), with a bit lower power consumption.
January(ish) the 9600 series was released based on the G94 chip it is a partially crippled G92 and uses 64 streaming processors and less power.
In the last month or so, the 9800 series has been released based on the G92 chip with 128 streaming processors but with tri sli capability.
During this process Nvidia has been working on die shrinks of the existing chips to further reduce the power consumption so there are a number of less power hungry versions of the G94 and G92 chips in the market place and on the way.
The thing that has held back the G performance is really the 256 bit buss width, the next iteration of cards (9900 series) should see wider busses.
Nividias next gen chip (GT200) is due to be released in a couple of months initially in the quattro series but promises good things, and will drive the price of the G92 based boards lower, eventually.
What this means is that with a bit more budget than the 9600 you can get most of the 9800 performance (if you are not looking for TRI-SLI) by getting an 8800 G92 with 128 streaming processors. These are coming down in price as most people move to the newer 9600, not realizing that it isn't all that new, or even better. The 9800GT runs $100 more than the very similar 8800GTS (G92). Please note that if the board does not specify G92 then you may not get a G92 chip the suffix does not determine the actual GPU.
Edit; Crysis does not seem to benefit from more cores in its present state, however, it is allegedly being reworked for the PS3 cellprocessor. This effort/experience may result in better multithreading (and multi processor performance) on Crysis 2.
Enjoy!
Thanks HJ for that very good info. I'm glad somebody here takes the time to be more specific, as that is what is useful in determining this or that. Good job. lol
I bet by the time I get around to purchasing the card, the 8800GT's will come down a bit more, making my decision even more perplexing, but not really. The thing that i think about as do others i suspect, is the future. The 8800GT's should be good to go for quite a while don't ya think? What's your opinion on that?
I would say a qualified yes... It depends on what you desire performance wise.Quote:
The 8800GT's should be good to go for quite a while don't ya think?
For good (not uber) game play I would say that it looks like the G92 version of the 8800 256/512 series board ought to be acceptable for at least a year (most likely 2+)... if you don't absolutely have to have very high settings and resolutions. (be very careful many 8800 series boards still have the G80 chip and lower pipelines/performance). (Be careful when looking at benchmarks too, many of the charts show the G80 based cards with 96 pipelines, if the chart/description does not say G92 then assume it is the older less desirable G80 chip). The G92 was done to fix engineering errors in the G80, the newer chip is basically the G80 as it should have been).
The next game on my radar (Farcry 2) is not supposed to need any where near the graphic resources as Crysis. (I would expect Crysis 2 to push the hardware envelope again when it is issued).
Looking back it seems that I end up getting a newer card about every 2 1/2 or 3 years just to play the newest (machine crippling) games (I think the last time was Doom 3, or maybe Farcry).
Enjoy!
Any which way you look at it, this is always fun to shop and compare. Every other day i seem to switch my views around and decide upon something different. I suppose we all do that when shoping or we should. Compare and study up that is.
I do a very good job overall when i get computer HW. I'd say over the years, i haven't made two mistakes of any kind, and TBH, almost nill. My current system is running like a dream, and no doubt with that new card, it will run even better.
Below is a link of a card i found last night when looking, and thought from the reviews by users, and its specs. plus the nice HSF included, this would suffice for my needs. What are your thoughts on this?
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814121229
A lot depends on the resolution you play at. I'm still on and happy with a 19" LCD, so my gaming is all done at 1280x1024 which my 8800GT should be adquate enough to handle for a good time to come
Looks like a pretty generic 9600 256/512.. It should be expected to work about the same as the rest of the pack. as it seems to be a standard reference design board.
Will it work for you... I can't really say... see if you can find a similar card that one of your friends may have and give it a try on crysis. Compare the performance in the frozen level as it is hardest for vid cards (shaders? maybe).
Personally, Unless you have on overwhelming need to buy a card right now I would wait until after the next round or two of price reductions. In this price range I would also seriously consider the ATI offerings, since competition with these are what the 9600 was targeted at.
I agree on the resolution, I would probably still be using the 7800 except that my monitor gave up the ghost and I ended up at 1680x1050 on the new 19".
Enjoy!
Funny s i keep going back to my original option in the 8800GTS 320Mb version. I just read over the reviews by alot of gamers that have it and came aways very very impressed. The one i saw is the EGVA, which is the maker i hae now and who made my old 5900 years ago, and it is going for $144.00. That seems like a great price that won't break my bank and still give me the ability to play ost high end games at the higher resolution. TBH, i only used 2X AA with medium settings when playing 'Crysis' now and I must have hit the sweet spot. Last night i was playing it with no apparent slowdowns and it just looked gorgeous. best yet. Yeah.., i know, the FPS were not shown or don't know waht i'm getting, but it is more then playable. I'll ost a 'fraps' link later on to see just what i'm getting.
Ah..yes. the dreaded 'freeze level'. The slowest part of the game for sure. I would guess it drops to 5-10 max on that. I can play it fine though.
I am playing it right now at 1152 X 864, which is the best for what i have now. I have played it on the next highest to that 1280 X 960 and it plays alright.
Best thing I did lately and TBH, for a very long time is buy this monitor. I am soo happy. Nothing wrong with the Acer montiors thats for sure. LOL
Yeah, I looked really hard at the 320 GTS. It has the old G80 chip and while I really liked the 320 bus (especially with the 640mb memory) I wanted more pipelines and a less power hungry chip.
I think its interesting that the G92 and 94 based chips limited the bus to 256 and save the wider busses for the up coming 9900 series (most likely with a reduced die G92 chip/variant) obviously a marketing decision. Watch the current prices drop after the June/July model introduction.!
I find games very unenjoyable at frame rates less than 20 and basically will stop playing them if I can't get the rate back up to occasional stutter levels (I die too quickly during slide shows).. Long before it gets to 15; I will readjust the settings and start overclocking the vid card.
I am liking my new monitor too; Its an Acer also!
Enjoy!
There is really no reason to go for a G80 based GTS over the 8800GT. The 8800GT, even with it's lower memory bus is significantly faster. Even and high resolutions (1080p) it can still maintain an advantage over the G80 based GTS, especailly a 320mb model.
busdriver ... what card did you get and have you got it in yet?
Thks for the tips guys. I esp. like what H.J. relayed in that even though this card i have is pretty dull compared to the latest out, it does play all the latest games just fine. this monitor i have only goes up to 1024 X1280, which is plenty good enough for me. I never run it at that. Pushing it to 1280 X960 is fine.
That is good info Ramone thks. for that also. Good point. prices will indeed drop so?
Also as a side note.. i really do need a new computer case. The one i have i bet i could use forever, but a few things in and about the case are either broken or just lain old. I have my sites set on the Antec case below. i also like the Saprano case by TT, which is a mid tower.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16811129021
Only reason i wanted one now TBH, ( video card ) is that i have a small window of gettig the extra monies needed. I'm going ot borow about $100.00 from my younger sis,a nd if i wait her monies will evaporate. I know her. I am going to pay her back with two payments.. so i only have to shell out like $50.00- 70.00 out of own pocket. LOL
Here are Tom's card rankings for march; if it helps any... Please not that (as RamonGTP said) the 8800GTS 320 ranks below the 8800gt 512; getting easily beaten by the 9600 512.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...cs,1786-8.html
Enjoy!
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814130318
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814150277
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814130082
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814150252
Heres a few links i found at NewEgg. its temping ot pass up a low price like the 8800GTS 320MB at $130.00, but TBH, i think your all right on there. I had just looked at some other benchmarks from Tom's, which i figured were a bit old, and that clears some things up for sure. Anything around $180.00 and less i can handle i think.
I like your original Asus 9600 512 choce better;
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814121229
Or lead tecs
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814122048
or the factory over colcked Asus version;
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814121242
Or the cheapest 112 pipe 8800 GT on sale;
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814143118
I don't call $165 after rebate (assuming you actually get the rebate, I have bad luck with rebates) a bad deal.
Enjoy!
Gosh i guess that post i just wrote about an hour ago didn't go through..lol
I agree about the Asus card, which the tow features that make it better are the higher clock speeds and better cooler, but the XFX model is only $179.00, although standard clock speed for a 8800GT 512.
One thing for sure is that it will be a 9600GT or a 8800GT for sure. I'm still up in the air about that STILL. If i could get a higher clock one at around 180.00, then i would opt for the 8800GT. Problem is the 9600GT's are more recent and are just short on performance to the 8800GT's, which are good enough for me.
That Leadtech model is interesting. Nice deal and good enough clock speeds for me. Plus a free game. How nice! I don't think i like that game though. I tend to go with EGVA,but am open at this time for sure. they all make good cards now.
As a side note here, i just talked with my sis,and her monies aer going to be tied up for two more weeks. By then i can order something, and by then, who knows!, prices may fall even further,making a decision easier. LOL :rolleyes: :t