PDA

View Full Version : 9600 or wait



Pages : [1] 2 3

Ext User(JB)
04-10-2011, 01:01 PM
I just bought a new Dell bargain system that I'm going to upgrade
right away. It has a cheapo GeForce 5200 video card, so I want to
replace it. Do you think I should go with RADEON 9600 or wait for
something else?

Also, this is an 8300 system I got for about $500. I have an Audigy 2
card and a few other things I'll be adding, but -- is there anything
else on the 8300 that I should consider replacing?

- JB

Ext User(Dave C.)
04-10-2011, 01:01 PM
"JB" <jbrandonbb@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:45ac3713.0406221246.20f25ab3@posting.google.c om...
> I just bought a new Dell bargain system that I'm going to upgrade
> right away. It has a cheapo GeForce 5200 video card, so I want to
> replace it. Do you think I should go with RADEON 9600 or wait for
> something else?
>
> Also, this is an 8300 system I got for about $500. I have an Audigy 2
> card and a few other things I'll be adding, but -- is there anything
> else on the 8300 that I should consider replacing?
>
> - JB

As I've written before, it would be foolish to spend more than about $100
maximum on a video card right now, with PCI Express coming out before your
next upgrade. Keep the 5200, as it's not likely you'd get something
significantly better for less than a hundred bucks. If you plan to keep the
system for at least two years, add another stick of 512MB of RAM from
www.crucial.com

That should do it. -Dave

Ext User(Mac Cool)
04-10-2011, 01:01 PM
"Dave C." <mdupre@sff.net> said:

> As I've written before, it would be foolish to spend more than about
> $100 maximum on a video card right now, with PCI Express coming out
> before your next upgrade.

This is just silly advice. When AGP came out there was significant overlap
before AGP showed a significant performance advantage over PCI. In fact,
the first generation of AGP cards were slower than than their PCI
counterparts. It will be one, maybe two years, after PCI-E makes it debut
before it's advantages are taken advantage of. You don't know when the guy
is going to upgrade to a PCI-E system so telling him to sit tight on a
5200 is just foolish.
--
Mac Cool

Ext User(Mac Cool)
04-10-2011, 01:01 PM
"Dave C." <mdupre@sff.net> said:

> As I've written before, it would be foolish to spend more than about
> $100 maximum on a video card right now, with PCI Express coming out
> before your next upgrade.

This is just silly advice. When AGP came out there was significant overlap
before AGP showed a significant performance advantage over PCI. In fact,
the first generation of AGP cards were slower than than their PCI
counterparts. It will be one, maybe two years, after PCI-E makes it debut
before it's advantages are taken advantage of. You don't know when the guy
is going to upgrade to a PCI-E system so telling him to sit tight on a
5200 is just foolish.
--
Mac Cool

Ext User(Mac Cool)
04-10-2011, 01:01 PM
jbrandonbb@hotmail.com (JB) said:

> It has a cheapo GeForce 5200 video card, so I want to
> replace it. Do you think I should go with RADEON 9600 or wait for
> something else?

Don't listen to Dave, his wife makes his computer buying decisions anyway.
Whether you replace the 5200 depends on what you play. The 9600 is about
30% faster in most games, but it isn't fast enough for games like Far Cry
and who knows how it will perform in Doom3 or HL2.

Dave is right about one thing, the 9600 is about your only choice for ~
$100 and I don't know if it's a significant enough upgrade to bother with.
The 9700 & 9800s will come down in price this fall and you might want to
wait a few months. Keep an eye on newegg.com's refurbished section, they
have good deals once in a while.
--
Mac Cool

Ext User(Mac Cool)
04-10-2011, 01:01 PM
jbrandonbb@hotmail.com (JB) said:

> It has a cheapo GeForce 5200 video card, so I want to
> replace it. Do you think I should go with RADEON 9600 or wait for
> something else?

Don't listen to Dave, his wife makes his computer buying decisions anyway.
Whether you replace the 5200 depends on what you play. The 9600 is about
30% faster in most games, but it isn't fast enough for games like Far Cry
and who knows how it will perform in Doom3 or HL2.

Dave is right about one thing, the 9600 is about your only choice for ~
$100 and I don't know if it's a significant enough upgrade to bother with.
The 9700 & 9800s will come down in price this fall and you might want to
wait a few months. Keep an eye on newegg.com's refurbished section, they
have good deals once in a while.
--
Mac Cool

Ext User(David Besack)
04-10-2011, 01:01 PM
> The 9600 is about
> 30% faster in most games, but it isn't fast enough for games like Far Cry
> and who knows how it will perform in Doom3 or HL2.

Just another data point - I play Far Cry with a 5200 ultra and it runs
smooth at 1024x768. The only thing I've had to do is turn down shadow
and fog to low settings. Other than that the game runs very nicely.

I use an XP 3000+ and a gig of Geil ultra RAM.

Ext User(David Besack)
04-10-2011, 01:01 PM
> The 9600 is about
> 30% faster in most games, but it isn't fast enough for games like Far Cry
> and who knows how it will perform in Doom3 or HL2.

Just another data point - I play Far Cry with a 5200 ultra and it runs
smooth at 1024x768. The only thing I've had to do is turn down shadow
and fog to low settings. Other than that the game runs very nicely.

I use an XP 3000+ and a gig of Geil ultra RAM.

Ext User(JB)
04-10-2011, 01:01 PM
Mac Cool <Mac@2cool.com> wrote in message news:<Xns9510E170499A9MacCool@24.25.9.42>...
> jbrandonbb@hotmail.com (JB) said:
>
> > It has a cheapo GeForce 5200 video card, so I want to
> > replace it. Do you think I should go with RADEON 9600 or wait for
> > something else?
>
> Don't listen to Dave, his wife makes his computer buying decisions anyway.
> Whether you replace the 5200 depends on what you play. The 9600 is about
> 30% faster in most games, but it isn't fast enough for games like Far Cry
> and who knows how it will perform in Doom3 or HL2.

How much faster would a 9800 be -- what percentage?

Yeah, I play tons of games and will be in line to get HL2.

- JB

Ext User(JB)
04-10-2011, 01:01 PM
David Besack <daveREMOVEbesack@mac.com> wrote in message news:<cbb8no$796q$1@netnews.upenn.edu>...
> > The 9600 is about
> > 30% faster in most games, but it isn't fast enough for games like Far Cry
> > and who knows how it will perform in Doom3 or HL2.
>
> Just another data point - I play Far Cry with a 5200 ultra and it runs
> smooth at 1024x768. The only thing I've had to do is turn down shadow
> and fog to low settings. Other than that the game runs very nicely.
>
Speaking of getting games to play their best, I read that the 5200 is
the cheapest card that supports DX9, which makes me think that's why
Dell includes it. And DX9 games like Doom3 are just around the croner.
But that the 5200 is really too slow to keep up and won't work that
great. Then there's the new X800 and NVidia 6800 cards that seem way
too expensive. The 9800 seems like a good compromise.

Really, I'm looking for graphics similar to what you get with
Chronicles of Riddick for Xbox with dynamic per-pixel lighting, normal
mapping, etc. I have yet to see anything that even comes close to the
realism in that game on PC. I have Unreal T 04 sitting here waiting to
be played, though. My old computer has a RADEON 8500, doesn't seem
fast enough...

What other DX9 games are out there?

- JB

Ext User(JB)
04-10-2011, 01:01 PM
Mac Cool <Mac@2cool.com> wrote in message news:<Xns9510E170499A9MacCool@24.25.9.42>...
> jbrandonbb@hotmail.com (JB) said:
>
> > It has a cheapo GeForce 5200 video card, so I want to
> > replace it. Do you think I should go with RADEON 9600 or wait for
> > something else?
>
> Don't listen to Dave, his wife makes his computer buying decisions anyway.
> Whether you replace the 5200 depends on what you play. The 9600 is about
> 30% faster in most games, but it isn't fast enough for games like Far Cry
> and who knows how it will perform in Doom3 or HL2.

How much faster would a 9800 be -- what percentage?

Yeah, I play tons of games and will be in line to get HL2.

- JB

Ext User(JB)
04-10-2011, 01:01 PM
David Besack <daveREMOVEbesack@mac.com> wrote in message news:<cbb8no$796q$1@netnews.upenn.edu>...
> > The 9600 is about
> > 30% faster in most games, but it isn't fast enough for games like Far Cry
> > and who knows how it will perform in Doom3 or HL2.
>
> Just another data point - I play Far Cry with a 5200 ultra and it runs
> smooth at 1024x768. The only thing I've had to do is turn down shadow
> and fog to low settings. Other than that the game runs very nicely.
>
Speaking of getting games to play their best, I read that the 5200 is
the cheapest card that supports DX9, which makes me think that's why
Dell includes it. And DX9 games like Doom3 are just around the croner.
But that the 5200 is really too slow to keep up and won't work that
great. Then there's the new X800 and NVidia 6800 cards that seem way
too expensive. The 9800 seems like a good compromise.

Really, I'm looking for graphics similar to what you get with
Chronicles of Riddick for Xbox with dynamic per-pixel lighting, normal
mapping, etc. I have yet to see anything that even comes close to the
realism in that game on PC. I have Unreal T 04 sitting here waiting to
be played, though. My old computer has a RADEON 8500, doesn't seem
fast enough...

What other DX9 games are out there?

- JB

Ext User(Jon Danniken)
04-10-2011, 01:01 PM
"JB" wrote:
> I just bought a new Dell bargain system that I'm going to upgrade
> right away. It has a cheapo GeForce 5200 video card, so I want to
> replace it. Do you think I should go with RADEON 9600 or wait for
> something else?

The only thing you will be waiting for is for prices to drop in existing AGP cards; if you are wanting
better performance in a game now, then upgrade now. If you aren't sure then wait; in the meantime prices
on existing stock will likely decline.

If it was *my* computer, since I game, yeah, I would upgrade right away, probably with a 9800PRO.

Jon

Ext User(Mac Cool)
04-10-2011, 01:02 PM
"Dave C." <mdupre@sff.net> said:

> As I've written before, it would be foolish to spend more than about
> $100 maximum on a video card right now, with PCI Express coming out
> before your next upgrade.

This is just silly advice. When AGP came out there was significant overlap
before AGP showed a significant performance advantage over PCI. In fact,
the first generation of AGP cards were slower than than their PCI
counterparts. It will be one, maybe two years, after PCI-E makes it debut
before it's advantages are taken advantage of. You don't know when the guy
is going to upgrade to a PCI-E system so telling him to sit tight on a
5200 is just foolish.
--
Mac Cool

Ext User(Mac Cool)
04-10-2011, 01:02 PM
jbrandonbb@hotmail.com (JB) said:

> How much faster would a 9800 be -- what percentage?

A 9800XT would be about 4X (400%) faster than a 5200, 2X faster than a
9600, using Far Cry as a benchmark; Halo is even more demandingqq. The
9600 is about as fast as a Geforce4 Ti4200.
--
Mac Cool

Ext User(Mac Cool)
04-10-2011, 01:02 PM
jbrandonbb@hotmail.com (JB) said:

> How much faster would a 9800 be -- what percentage?

A 9800XT would be about 4X (400%) faster than a 5200, 2X faster than a
9600, using Far Cry as a benchmark; Halo is even more demandingqq. The
9600 is about as fast as a Geforce4 Ti4200.
--
Mac Cool

Ext User(Mac Cool)
04-10-2011, 01:02 PM
jbrandonbb@hotmail.com (JB) said:

> It has a cheapo GeForce 5200 video card, so I want to
> replace it. Do you think I should go with RADEON 9600 or wait for
> something else?

Don't listen to Dave, his wife makes his computer buying decisions anyway.
Whether you replace the 5200 depends on what you play. The 9600 is about
30% faster in most games, but it isn't fast enough for games like Far Cry
and who knows how it will perform in Doom3 or HL2.

Dave is right about one thing, the 9600 is about your only choice for ~
$100 and I don't know if it's a significant enough upgrade to bother with.
The 9700 & 9800s will come down in price this fall and you might want to
wait a few months. Keep an eye on newegg.com's refurbished section, they
have good deals once in a while.
--
Mac Cool

Ext User(Mac Cool)
04-10-2011, 01:02 PM
jbrandonbb@hotmail.com (JB) said:

> David Besack <daveREMOVEbesack@mac.com> wrote in message
> news:<cbb8no$796q$1@netnews.upenn.edu>...
>> > The 9600 is about
>> > 30% faster in most games, but it isn't fast enough for games like
>> > Far Cry and who knows how it will perform in Doom3 or HL2.
>>
>> Just another data point - I play Far Cry with a 5200 ultra and it
>> runs smooth at 1024x768. The only thing I've had to do is turn down
>> shadow and fog to low settings. Other than that the game runs very
>> nicely.

David, your post didn't show on RR so I can reply directly... The last
benchmarks on Far Cry that I saw, put the 9600 at about 33 FPS and the
5200U at about 26 FPS at 1024x768, so even with things turned down, the
5200 is very marginal for Far Cry, forget about Halo.

> Speaking of getting games to play their best, I read that the 5200 is
> the cheapest card that supports DX9, which makes me think that's why
> Dell includes it.

If I'm not mistaken, the 9800XT is an option for the 8300, or it used to
be.

> And DX9 games like Doom3 are just around the
> croner. But that the 5200 is really too slow to keep up and won't
> work that great. Then there's the new X800 and NVidia 6800 cards that
> seem way too expensive. The 9800 seems like a good compromise.

Personally, I wouldn't buy a card now to play Doom3 or HL2 because as
soon as those games come out there will be a plethora of cards optimized
for them. Cards you buy today, including the 9800, will be forgotten in
6-8 months. If you plan on playing Doom3 & HL2, then I would be tempted
to wait until Christmas to buy a card.

> Really, I'm looking for graphics similar to what you get with
> Chronicles of Riddick for Xbox with dynamic per-pixel lighting,
> normal mapping, etc. I have yet to see anything that even comes close
> to the realism in that game on PC.

I have the demo sitting here but haven't played it yet, I've heard it's
damn nice. I'm anxious to see it on my hdtv.

> I have Unreal T 04 sitting here
> waiting to be played, though. My old computer has a RADEON 8500,
> doesn't seem fast enough...

I downloaded the demo and could never get it to run stable so I didn't
buy the game. Only deathmatch would work, any other mode would lock up
the computer. I might pick it up used. I using a G4 Ti4200 and the demo
looked great while it was running.
--
Mac Cool

Ext User(Mac Cool)
04-10-2011, 01:02 PM
jbrandonbb@hotmail.com (JB) said:

> David Besack <daveREMOVEbesack@mac.com> wrote in message
> news:<cbb8no$796q$1@netnews.upenn.edu>...
>> > The 9600 is about
>> > 30% faster in most games, but it isn't fast enough for games like
>> > Far Cry and who knows how it will perform in Doom3 or HL2.
>>
>> Just another data point - I play Far Cry with a 5200 ultra and it
>> runs smooth at 1024x768. The only thing I've had to do is turn down
>> shadow and fog to low settings. Other than that the game runs very
>> nicely.

David, your post didn't show on RR so I can reply directly... The last
benchmarks on Far Cry that I saw, put the 9600 at about 33 FPS and the
5200U at about 26 FPS at 1024x768, so even with things turned down, the
5200 is very marginal for Far Cry, forget about Halo.

> Speaking of getting games to play their best, I read that the 5200 is
> the cheapest card that supports DX9, which makes me think that's why
> Dell includes it.

If I'm not mistaken, the 9800XT is an option for the 8300, or it used to
be.

> And DX9 games like Doom3 are just around the
> croner. But that the 5200 is really too slow to keep up and won't
> work that great. Then there's the new X800 and NVidia 6800 cards that
> seem way too expensive. The 9800 seems like a good compromise.

Personally, I wouldn't buy a card now to play Doom3 or HL2 because as
soon as those games come out there will be a plethora of cards optimized
for them. Cards you buy today, including the 9800, will be forgotten in
6-8 months. If you plan on playing Doom3 & HL2, then I would be tempted
to wait until Christmas to buy a card.

> Really, I'm looking for graphics similar to what you get with
> Chronicles of Riddick for Xbox with dynamic per-pixel lighting,
> normal mapping, etc. I have yet to see anything that even comes close
> to the realism in that game on PC.

I have the demo sitting here but haven't played it yet, I've heard it's
damn nice. I'm anxious to see it on my hdtv.

> I have Unreal T 04 sitting here
> waiting to be played, though. My old computer has a RADEON 8500,
> doesn't seem fast enough...

I downloaded the demo and could never get it to run stable so I didn't
buy the game. Only deathmatch would work, any other mode would lock up
the computer. I might pick it up used. I using a G4 Ti4200 and the demo
looked great while it was running.
--
Mac Cool

Ext User(David Besack)
04-10-2011, 01:02 PM
> The 9600 is about
> 30% faster in most games, but it isn't fast enough for games like Far Cry
> and who knows how it will perform in Doom3 or HL2.

Just another data point - I play Far Cry with a 5200 ultra and it runs
smooth at 1024x768. The only thing I've had to do is turn down shadow
and fog to low settings. Other than that the game runs very nicely.

I use an XP 3000+ and a gig of Geil ultra RAM.

Hosted by: Eyo Technologies Pty Ltd. Sponsored by: Actiontec Pty Ltd