| Author |
Message |
Doug McLaren
Guest
|
 Posted:
Wed Nov 09, 2005 3:36 am Post subject:
I've got around $150 to spend on a video card. 128 MB or 25 |
|
|
I started playing FEAR, and having it run at only 640x480 on my FX
5600 (and being slow even there) really isn't doing it for me. So I
want something better.
I'm looking to upgrade the CPU and MB to an AMD x64 3000 or 3200 (1800
MHz or 2000 MHz) though I might go a bit faster (depends on the
prices), and am thinking I'll probably keep going with AGP for now.
(Though even that's not set in stone.)
(Right now the CPU is an XP 2400 in a crappy ECS board that doesn't
even do dual channel.)
The `sweet' spot for the graphics performance appears to be the
GeForce 6600 cards. But looking at the benchmarks, the 6600 GT seems
to give frame rates that are 60% faster than the 6600 in many of the
benchmarks -- that's huge!
I can get a 6600 w/ 256 MB video ram for $115 or so, or a 6600 GT w/
128 MB ram for $130. Or a 6600 GT w/ 256 MB ram for around $200.
So far, I'm thinking that none of the games I've played would really
benefit from more than 128 MB of ram. But now with video cards out
that have 512 MB of ram, how long will 128 MB be good enough to play
the latest games (without all the options turned up, but at least some
of them anyways.)
Which would make more sense? 6600 256 MB or 6600 GT 128 MB? Or
should I be looking at something else entirely?
--
Doug McLaren, dougmc@frenzy.com
If in danger or in doubt, run in circles -- scream and shout! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Larry Roberts
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Nov 09, 2005 5:06 am Post subject:
Re: I've got around $150 to spend on a video card. 128 MB o |
|
|
On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 21:36:52 GMT, dougmc@frenzy.com (Doug McLaren)
wrote:
| Quote: | I started playing FEAR, and having it run at only 640x480 on my FX
5600 (and being slow even there) really isn't doing it for me. So I
want something better.
I'm looking to upgrade the CPU and MB to an AMD x64 3000 or 3200 (1800
MHz or 2000 MHz) though I might go a bit faster (depends on the
prices), and am thinking I'll probably keep going with AGP for now.
(Though even that's not set in stone.)
(Right now the CPU is an XP 2400 in a crappy ECS board that doesn't
even do dual channel.)
The `sweet' spot for the graphics performance appears to be the
GeForce 6600 cards. But looking at the benchmarks, the 6600 GT seems
to give frame rates that are 60% faster than the 6600 in many of the
benchmarks -- that's huge!
I can get a 6600 w/ 256 MB video ram for $115 or so, or a 6600 GT w/
128 MB ram for $130. Or a 6600 GT w/ 256 MB ram for around $200.
So far, I'm thinking that none of the games I've played would really
benefit from more than 128 MB of ram. But now with video cards out
that have 512 MB of ram, how long will 128 MB be good enough to play
the latest games (without all the options turned up, but at least some
of them anyways.)
Which would make more sense? 6600 256 MB or 6600 GT 128 MB? Or
should I be looking at something else entirely?
|
It depends. If your next mainboard will be AGP, then you'd be
better with a 6800GT, but at the price of those cards, I'd try to make
sure my next mainboard will be PCI-E. In which case, you'd be
purchasing an AGP card to carry you over till then. I'd go for the
6600GT 128MB. The extra 128MB makes for better performance with
resolutions above 1024x768, in which case might bog down your system
as it is with new games.
I have a 6600GT 128MB AGP in an Athlon XP 3000+ system, and at
1024x768 I haven't found anything to cause it to lag one bit. My 21"
CRT is an old 1995 workstation monitor that doesn't support above
1024x768, so I really couldn't say how much my card would slow down at
higher resolutions. However, since the 6800GS is out, and it basically
is as good as the 6800GT, I'd put the extra $70.00 you'd save from
getting the 6600GT 128MB towards buying one of those (if money is a
factor) when you upgrade everything, or get a 7800 series card (if
money is not a factor). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
deimos
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Nov 12, 2005 8:26 am Post subject:
Re: I've got around $150 to spend on a video card. 128 MB o |
|
|
Doug McLaren wrote:
| Quote: | I started playing FEAR, and having it run at only 640x480 on my FX
5600 (and being slow even there) really isn't doing it for me. So I
want something better.
I'm looking to upgrade the CPU and MB to an AMD x64 3000 or 3200 (1800
MHz or 2000 MHz) though I might go a bit faster (depends on the
prices), and am thinking I'll probably keep going with AGP for now.
(Though even that's not set in stone.)
(Right now the CPU is an XP 2400 in a crappy ECS board that doesn't
even do dual channel.)
The `sweet' spot for the graphics performance appears to be the
GeForce 6600 cards. But looking at the benchmarks, the 6600 GT seems
to give frame rates that are 60% faster than the 6600 in many of the
benchmarks -- that's huge!
I can get a 6600 w/ 256 MB video ram for $115 or so, or a 6600 GT w/
128 MB ram for $130. Or a 6600 GT w/ 256 MB ram for around $200.
So far, I'm thinking that none of the games I've played would really
benefit from more than 128 MB of ram. But now with video cards out
that have 512 MB of ram, how long will 128 MB be good enough to play
the latest games (without all the options turned up, but at least some
of them anyways.)
Which would make more sense? 6600 256 MB or 6600 GT 128 MB? Or
should I be looking at something else entirely?
|
Get a 6600GT 128MB, don't even think twice. Just do it. I love my XFX
6600GT, it runs anything I throw at it flawlessly (for a Barton 2500
system!) and having a default clock of 500/1000 just feels so right.
The 6600GT's with 256MB I've seen have so far been inferior models with
slower regular DDR and reduced clocks. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in