[Video Cards] FSAA Quality -- ATI 9800 Pro vs. GeForce FX 5900 Ultra
- Thread starter Ristamar
- Start date
Ranger REG
Explorer
I just want a comparative review of the various GeForce FX cards from 5200 to 5900 ULTRA.
As a cheap SOB, I'm liken to 5200 now priced at $99.
Any thoughts, or should I go with GeForce MX440?
As a cheap SOB, I'm liken to 5200 now priced at $99.
Any thoughts, or should I go with GeForce MX440?
Last edited:
Psionicist
Explorer
Ranger REG said:
The 5200 sucks, so does the MX440. Look for the Ti4200 or Radeon 9500 Pro cards. You can probably get a used for a decent price.
Psionicist said:
Right now, if you're looking at a new card in the $80-$110 range, it'll probably be a GFFX 5200 or a Radeon 9000/9100/9200, though you can find a few GF4 Ti4200 cards in that range. The Ti4200 is usually the best performer of that bunch, but since it's last year's midrange card, rather than this year's budget card, they're harder to find.
Ranger REG
Explorer
Unfortunately, CompUSA in Hawaii does not supply GeForce 4 Ti line.
OBTW, what makes some of the GFFX cards "ULTRA"?
OBTW, what makes some of the GFFX cards "ULTRA"?
jdavis
First Post
The FX 5200 ultra is probably the cheapest card out there that supports Direct X 9 (Geforce 4 cards do not). At around $150 the Radeon 9600 Pro is the best "bang for the buck" card out there (the 9500 is the old card, still real good and prices dropping fast).
It all depends on what games you want to play, many of the big games just around the corner are Direct X 9 games (like the much hyped Doom 3 and Half Life 2). If you don't care about these type of games then one of the older cards will do (I have found Geforce 4 4800 cards for less than $150 on the internet with a little searching). http://www.pricewatch.com/ is a good place to start.
I'm not sure why the call the FX cards Ultra, I have never seen one not labeled ultra. Could just be a marketing gimmick. Nvidia just changed cores again with the introduction of the FX 5900 (the 5800 was a dog so they went ahead and replaced it). The FX 5200 will probably be upgraded to the FX 5300 in the near future when they shift the whole line to the new core.
It all depends on what games you want to play, many of the big games just around the corner are Direct X 9 games (like the much hyped Doom 3 and Half Life 2). If you don't care about these type of games then one of the older cards will do (I have found Geforce 4 4800 cards for less than $150 on the internet with a little searching). http://www.pricewatch.com/ is a good place to start.
I'm not sure why the call the FX cards Ultra, I have never seen one not labeled ultra. Could just be a marketing gimmick. Nvidia just changed cores again with the introduction of the FX 5900 (the 5800 was a dog so they went ahead and replaced it). The FX 5200 will probably be upgraded to the FX 5300 in the near future when they shift the whole line to the new core.
Ranger REG said:
Basically, the number indicates what GPU you've got (5200->NV34; 5600->NV31; 5800 -> NV30; 5900->NV35), but there are two variants of each GPU (not counting 128 MB vs. 256 MB versions). The 'Ultra' versions have a higher GPU clock speed and/or a higher memory clock speed. ATI uses 'Pro' the same way NVidia uses 'Ultra', so a Radeon 9500 Pro is faster than a Radeon 9500.
jdavis
First Post
Yea it's in the new issue (same one with the FX 5900 review). The FX 5900 ultra was faster but the Radeon has superior image quality. They gave it a 9 out of 10 and said it was too expensive and wasn't as fast as the new FX 5900.Ristamar said:
I love Maximum PC magazine. They cut out a lot of the crap the other mgazines go through, they are defiantly aimed at the Home PC enthusiast. I get a lot of use out of their companion disk they package with the magazine too.
