PDA

View Full Version : Least GeForce for decent DX9 performance?


RC
November 24th 03, 03:04 PM
What is the lest $$ nVidia GeForce card I can get that will still be 100%
Directx 9.0 compatible and run DX9 stuff smoothly? This is assuming
processor is Athlon XP 2800+ or better, nForce2 chipset on the motherboard,
PC3200 ram...

I was thinking FX5200 but is that too light for good DX9 punch?

Lenny
November 24th 03, 04:39 PM
> What is the lest $$ nVidia GeForce card I can get that will still be 100%
> Directx 9.0 compatible and run DX9 stuff smoothly?

Currently?
NONE.

Nvidia does not support any "deep" buffer formats either for textures, frame
buffers or render targets in current drivers, which means a lot of the big
features of DX9 are lost. Also, putting "FX5200" and "smooth" in the same
sentence is a rather bad joke actually. That chip's a real clunker.

Your system isn't bad at all, but you need to spend a bit more on the video
card to make it balanced. If you absolutely have to buy Nvidia for some
weird reason, you shouldn't aim at anything less than a 5600U.

Helmers
November 24th 03, 06:08 PM
RC wrote:

> What is the lest $$ nVidia GeForce card I can get that will still be 100%
> Directx 9.0 compatible and run DX9 stuff smoothly? This is assuming
> processor is Athlon XP 2800+ or better, nForce2 chipset on the motherboard,
> PC3200 ram...
>
> I was thinking FX5200 but is that too light for good DX9 punch?

I think so. I've got a GFX5600(not ultra) and it is... okay. Most games
run okay, but it doesn't feel "great". And my system specs ain't half
bad either. If you buy anything Nvidia less than a GFX5600 I think you
will be sorry.

AthlonXP 3000+
Asus A7V600 (Via KT600)
1024 400MHz RAM


--
Kind regards
Helmers

Dark Avenger
November 24th 03, 08:52 PM
"RC" > wrote in message >...
> What is the lest $$ nVidia GeForce card I can get that will still be 100%
> Directx 9.0 compatible and run DX9 stuff smoothly? This is assuming
> processor is Athlon XP 2800+ or better, nForce2 chipset on the motherboard,
> PC3200 ram...
>
> I was thinking FX5200 but is that too light for good DX9 punch?

As already said, the current cards of nvidia are a bit "slow" in DX9,
so with current titles only using minor amounts of DX9 effects you can
play nicely, but once more percentage of the shaders used in games
become PS 2.0 and other parts are also changed to DX9.

Then an nvidia FX switches back to PS 1.4 OR lower precision.

If you truly need a nvidia card... take the 5700 Ultra, nice fast and
close to the 9600XT from ATI. A nice performer.

Or ofcourse a 5900 Ultra or even a 5950 Ultra, but those are quite
expensive!

Else Go ATI, but for that you need to be in
alt.comp.periphs.videocard.at :-)

RC
November 24th 03, 09:46 PM
It doesn't have to be nVidia, I just thought it would be a good match to the
nVidia nForce2 motherboard chipset.
Which ATI card would you recommend for good 3D (flight sims and first person
shooters) entertainment software frame rates, for someone on a smallish
budget. Would like to keep it below $150 for the vidcard.

"Dark Avenger" > wrote in message > As already said, the
current cards of nvidia are a bit "slow" in DX9,
> so with current titles only using minor amounts of DX9 effects you can
> play nicely, but once more percentage of the shaders used in games
> become PS 2.0 and other parts are also changed to DX9.
>
> Then an nvidia FX switches back to PS 1.4 OR lower precision.
>
> If you truly need a nvidia card... take the 5700 Ultra, nice fast and
> close to the 9600XT from ATI. A nice performer.
>
> Or ofcourse a 5900 Ultra or even a 5950 Ultra, but those are quite
> expensive!
>
> Else Go ATI, but for that you need to be in
> alt.comp.periphs.videocard.at :-)

Falkentyne
November 25th 03, 02:11 AM
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 14:46:45 -0600, "RC" >
enlightened us by scribbling this gem of wisdom:

>It doesn't have to be nVidia, I just thought it would be a good match to the
>nVidia nForce2 motherboard chipset.
>Which ATI card would you recommend for good 3D (flight sims and first person
>shooters) entertainment software frame rates, for someone on a smallish
>budget. Would like to keep it below $150 for the vidcard.

In that case you definitely want a 9700 Pro.
But good luck finding one. Might try a computer show......
No idea what the Pro's are going for these days....


<Gibs> When you kill 6 people in Unreal Tournament
it is "MonsterKill", In Quake3 it is "Excellent",
in Counter-Strike it is "Kicked by console"

Darthy
November 25th 03, 10:29 AM
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 08:04:14 -0600, "RC" >
wrote:

>What is the lest $$ nVidia GeForce card I can get that will still be 100%
>Directx 9.0 compatible and run DX9 stuff smoothly? This is assuming
>processor is Athlon XP 2800+ or better, nForce2 chipset on the motherboard,
>PC3200 ram...
>
>I was thinking FX5200 but is that too light for good DX9 punch?

$200~240 FX 5700Ultra.


--
Remember when real men used Real computers!?
When 512K of video RAM was a lot!

Death to Palladium & WPA!!

Darthy
November 25th 03, 10:37 AM
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 14:46:45 -0600, "RC" >
wrote:

>It doesn't have to be nVidia, I just thought it would be a good match to the
>nVidia nForce2 motherboard chipset.
>Which ATI card would you recommend for good 3D (flight sims and first person
>shooters) entertainment software frame rates, for someone on a smallish
>budget. Would like to keep it below $150 for the vidcard.

You're asking for a lot. The cheapest ATI card I would recommend is
the 9600XT - because it includes Half Life2 and a **** load of games

Read: http://www.ati.com/gitg/promotions/hl2offer/index.html and the
other pages.

And
Its at $200 at CompUSA, but should be around $175 online + S&H.

I have a 9800Pro , and todays UT2003 runs at 60fps (1280x1024x32 - all
details are MAXED) but I'm still using Windows98 and I'm losing about
25% of my system performance. (An AMD 2200 at stock with WinXP is
faster than my 2500 OC to AMD2800 speed)


--
Remember when real men used Real computers!?
When 512K of video RAM was a lot!

Death to Palladium & WPA!!