Recommend me a video card.

[KenM]

I want to upgrade my video card. Problem is I have an HP computer, and only a 220 watt power supply. All the video cards I have been looking at say you need at least a 300 watt power supply. I called HP tech support to find out what size power supply to get, they said standard ATX would work I buy a standard ATX, open the case, and the power supply that is inside is only half as long as the power supply I bought, the new one would not fit. I called HP back and they said that you have to special order power supplies from them, and they don't make power supplies as high as i need that will fit. Heaven forbid HP makes it easy to upgrade something I bought from them.
Anyway, I have a Nvidia Gforce 4 Ti4200 64 MB card, AGP slot. I want to upgrade to a DX 9 compatible 128 MB card. Anyone know any cards like that out there where I don't have to worry about the wattage on my power supply?

 

[Psionicist]

Hmm, where to begin. First of all = bigger is not always better. There are dozens of cheap 550W PSU's that are complete worthless compared to high-quality 300W units, for example. There should be a sticker on your PSU that will tell you max output load per rail, such as +5V: 30A, +12V: 17A, combined wattage (two or three rails). This information is more interesting and if you can write it down I can probably tell you if your current PSU is sufficient. You know those really small cube PC's from Shuttle? They have 2xxW-PSU's and they can handle really powerful video cards. This is because the PSU is high-quality, and you cannot connect that many drives to the computer. Next question then: How many disk drives, CD/DVD-units, PCI-cards (such as sound card, network card etc) are connected to your computer?

 

[KenM]

My specs: Athlon 2400 CPU (runs at 2 gig). 1 gig DDR ram, 80 GB HD, Nvidia Gforce 4 64 MB Ti4200, 4xAGP slot. a 3.5 floppy, a DVD drive, and CD RW drive. 56 k modem in a PCI slot, intergraded sound and ethernet card.
My problem is the HP said they don't make power supplies with hight enough wattage that fits. 220 is the highest they make, and thats what I have. But most card say you need at least a 300 watt PS.

 

[Krieg]

You can always buy a new case & transplant everything (including your new power supply) into it.

Failing that ATI's Radeon 9600 line should work in your system currently. I would definitely stay away from the Nvidia GeForce 5200 to 5950 line as they are far more power hungry than the equivalent ATI cards.

 

[KenM]

I was accualy looking at this ATI card. http://www.compusa.com/products/product_info.asp?product_code=308210&pfp=BROWSE

Never used ATI before, but heard they are good.

 

[Breakdaddy]

ATI's are excellent cards, and a 9600 XT should work nicely for you. I havent used NVidia in three years and havent missed them a bit. One of my secondary systems is using a standard 9600 128 meg and runs most games admirably. This box has a 350 watt power supply bought through coolermaster and runs it and all the peripherals well (I have a LOT of extras in this system, so your 200+ watter might do the trick though I am not positive!). Good luck with your purchase!

 

[KenM]

All the Nvidia cards of the came cailbier say you need at least a 250 watt power supply, no such claims from ATI. We'll see how it goes.

 

[Psionicist]

ATI's are excellent cards, and a 9600 XT should work nicely for you. I havent used NVidia in three years and havent missed them a bit. One of my secondary systems is using a standard 9600 128 meg and runs most games admirably. This box has a 350 watt power supply bought through coolermaster and runs it and all the peripherals well (I have a LOT of extras in this system, so your 200+ watter might do the trick though I am not positive!). Good luck with your purchase!

The Nvidia GeforceFX 5900 XT is a wonderful card, the value is great (compared to the new top of the line cards such as 6800 and X800). I tested a whole bunch of cards a while ago (Radeon 9600 Pro, Radeon 9600 XT, Radeon 9800, Radeon 9800 Pro, Radeon 9800 XT, GeforceFX 5700, GeforceFX 5900 XT, GeforceFX 5900, GeforceFX 5900 Ultra, GeforceFX 5950 Ultra) and in the mid-range the 5900 XT is the new Ti4200. Where Radeon 9600 XT is an overclocked mid-range card the 5900 XT is an underclocked (heh) high-end-card, with more pipelines and generally better performance. However, you are right about recommending ATI this time. Most of the better Nvidia cards require extra power to work at all.

 

[Krieg]

FWIW the Geforce FX 5200-5950 series of cards also had a few other problems besides the excessive power consumption (image/driver problems, physical size of the board & cooling solution etc).

They solved most of the issues with the 5700 & 5900's (replacing the 5600 & 5800s) but I would still strongly recomend the ATI Radeon 9200-9800s over them.

I'm not sure why Psionicist is using the GeForce 5900 as a comparison point with the Radeon 9600. The 5900 was Nvidia's fastest card when it came out (in "Ultra" trim) while the 9600 has always been the mid-range alternative to the 9800. Nvidia' direct competitor for the 9600 is the GeForce 5700, while the GeForce FX 5900 & Radeon 9800 are targeted for the same price/performance range.

The 5900XT is the budget version of the 5900 line & it's equivalent from ATI would be the Radeon 9800 SE.

Also the 5900 isn't really "underclocked". The GPU is clocked at 450Mhz (the Radeon 9800Pro is 380Mhz) which is high for the segment. The XT version he is referring to is clocked at 390mhz which is still higher than the stock 9800. Most of it's heat/power issues can be traced directly to the processor speed. The 5900's predecessor (the 5800) screamed at 500Mhz, and was a commercial failure because of unacceptable power consumption & heat generation. That is why it's replacement (the 5900) was downclocked 10%.

So far all accounts seem to indicate that Nvidia has fixed most of the problems with it's newest family of high end cards (starting with Radeon 6800 Ultra).

 

[ShadowX]

FWIW the Geforce FX 5200-5950 series of cards also had a few other problems besides the excessive power consumption (image/driver problems, physical size of the board & cooling solution etc).

They solved most of the issues with the 5700 & 5900's (replacing the 5600 & 5800s) but I would still strongly recomend the ATI Radeon 9200-9800s over them.

I'm not sure why Psionicist is using the GeForce 5900 as a comparison point with the Radeon 9600. The 5900 was Nvidia's fastest card when it came out (in "Ultra" trim) while the 9600 has always been the mid-range alternative to the 9800. Nvidia' direct competitor for the 9600 is the GeForce 5700, while the GeForce FX 5900 & Radeon 9800 are targeted for the same price/performance range.

The 5900XT is the budget version of the 5900 line & it's equivalent from ATI would be the Radeon 9800 SE.

Also the 5900 isn't really "underclocked". The GPU is clocked at 450Mhz (the Radeon 9800Pro is 380Mhz) which is high for the segment. The XT version he is referring to is clocked at 390mhz which is still higher than the stock 9800. Most of it's heat/power issues can be traced directly to the processor speed. The 5900's predecessor (the 5800) screamed at 500Mhz, and was a commercial failure because of unacceptable power consumption & heat generation. That is why it's replacement (the 5900) was downclocked 10%.

So far all accounts seem to indicate that Nvidia has fixed most of the problems with it's newest family of high end cards (starting with Radeon 6800 Ultra).

If I had to recommend ATI cards, I would go 9500 Pro or 9700 Pro. This is under the assumption you can find them. Both were awesome cards for their price, and still hold up among anything out there right now.