If that is your budget, don't get the 5600, it may from the newer series of Geforce but it is much slower in most respects than the Geforce-4 TI4800 SE 128 MB 8X which is even less money, I think. I saw a comparison graph on a computer review site a while back. And Freelancer was one of the tests.

I am looking to buy a new computer and have been looking at this exact price range for cards myself and have concluded for the money the Gf-4 TI4800 is the best. Otherwise go up to Gf FX5900 128MB or something higher.

I know some people like Radeons and other things, but those are more expensive than you want.

Sir Spectre


... No more signature.

Edited by - Sir Spectre on 08-11-2003 20:59:10

I hear the FX's can be worse than a pair of dingo's balls. Why?

Ummmm. This may sound heretical to many but the ATI Radeon line of video cards currently are the better bang for the buck across all classes. The NVidia is behind on performance at the moment. Right now, about the only thing the GeForce boards seem to do better is generate heat.

Edit:

@Moo
And oh yeah. The ATIs are reported to have been tested by Valve against the GeForces and HL2 worked WAY better on the ATIs.

@Imagine
Oh yeah, same article about Vavle said something about the Radeons being able to handle DX9 with much greater efficiency and something else, I forget, but the current NVidia solutions, in comparison were more clumsy. Not being a techno head, I didn't quite get what reporter was trying to explain. If you can get it, try looking for MaximumPC, November 2003 edition. I checked but their web site does not seem to carry what currently is newest in print. It was in the printed mag.

Everyone's guessing that HL2 is the new benchmark and the Radeons currently are on top.


Edited by - Indy11 on 09-11-2003 04:24:13

The FX 5600 runs as well as the Ti4600 (the difference in performance is minor), but the 5600 can handle higher AA and AN settings plus has DX9 functionality. However i'd have to agree with Indy, you would get better bang for your buck from an Ati 9600.

@Mustang, if you could, answer me this: Which is better ATI Radeon 9600 256MB DDR AGP 8x or ATI 9600 PRO 128MB DDR AGP 8x

The reason I ask between PRO and not pro, is that the pro is more expensive by a few dollars, yet has half the DDR memory.

Sir Spectre


... No more signature.

@leonhart: It is a good card, but I'm afraid I have to agree that ATi is better.
@Sir Spectre: Pro is better.
You don't have textures big enough to require more than 128MB at the moment, and there wont be any in the near future.


Careful what you wish... You just might get it.

Edited by - Chetnik on 09-11-2003 08:04:12

---

@Mustang, if you could, answer me this: Which is better ATI Radeon 9600 256MB DDR AGP 8x or ATI 9600 PRO 128MB DDR AGP 8x

---

Have a look here. Faster fill rate, clock speed and memory speed. The extra 128 Mb is really only worth while if your going to playing over 1024x768 res anyway, higher speeds always cost you a bundle more than a larger memory size.

Like everyoen else is saying, go with ATi. I have a radeon 9700pro. The image quality is amazing. I can run freelancer at 1600X1200 and it plays smooth as silk on my meager p4 1.7ghz&512 SDram machine. I can turn up AA and AF and the framerates never drop. Also benchmark wise the radeon 9800pro 128mb beat the Geforce FX 5900 ultra 256mb in several test I saw. So you should definetly go ATi.

@Mustang, your link only showed comparable 128 MB ddrs. It didn't quite show me the comparison I needed.

@Chetnik, I'll take your word for it.

@Mechwarrior, don't forget Leonhart and myself are not going to shell out a lot of money. I think those Radeons you mentioned are too expensive.

Sir Spectre


... No more signature.

I'm going to get myself one for Christmas, no expense spared this time! beats soap-on-a-rope or slippers or Old Spice!

@SnS:

If you go back to what Mustang linked for you, check out the clock speeds of the processors and memory between the Pro and the lesser models. That should
indicate some areas of performance to you as well.

I know Indy11. But I wanted to know if the extra 128 MB made up for that difference or not. Which is what wasn't answered on the site.

Sir Spectre


... No more signature.

@ Sns:

Odd. You know I can find references to the 9800 series offered with 256Mb memory but I cannot find a 9600 Pro offered with that many, much less a plain jane 9600 with more than 128Mb. Are you sure that the 256Mb 9600 board comes that way from the factory?

@Chet & SbS

I know. Don't believe everything you read. Still, the one critique I usually ran across when the Radeon 9800 Pro came out was that it needed more than 128Mb of video memory. Double the volume to 256Mb was a common suggestion. Again, however, that was for the 9800 Pro. Can it make a difference? Like say for HL2 if it ever comes out?

@Indy11, I posted specs that I am trying to decide between for my new computer from a place that custom builds. That's what their site said they had. They also have a 9600 Pro 256MB and I'll probably just get that so the question is completely null, but I was curious anyway.

Sir Spectre


... No more signature.