Low-End Graphics Card Choice

[Ozzyfongz]

Well i have a very limited budget and i'm thinking of upgrading my old comp a little so that i can play a little more games on it. My choices are:

Geforce FX5200
http://www.techbuy.com.au/products/3...MB_DDR_TV_.asp

and

Radeon 9250
http://www.techbuy.com.au/products/5...-Out_AGP8X.asp

Well...i want something around that price range...which one should i get? I saw on another thread saying that Radeon 9250 is better...but it wasn't a really solid answer so i'd prefer a couple more people fortifying my choice.

Another question i have is what is DVI-Out and all those technical specifications you see in video cards? They are quite confusing...-_-...and are the video cards compatible with my motherboard? I have an Intel D850B and running an Intel P4 Willamette if it helps...

Thanks for your contribution in advance.

[mac451]

I currently have the fx 5200, and i can play BF2 fine on low graphics. But if you got the money, definatley go for a better card.

[Jaggannath]

DVI output is the output to the monitor... there are two types of main output, digital and analog. Analog outputs require two conversions, and are therefore more lossy (and of lower quality) than digital. With an LCD screen, it often has two ports for the two different inputs, depending on your video card

[glc]

Can you afford to go just a bit higher for a Radeon 9550? That will get you true DX9 support - the 9250 is a DX8 card and the 5200's DX9 is just lousy.

Any AGP 4x or 8x card is compatible with your motherboard.

[Ozzyfongz]

I guess i can switch to radeon 9550...but should i get the 128MB or 256MB? There's a $20 Australian dollar price difference.
I'm talking about this 128MB card and this 256MB card. Both from Xpertvision

There aren't any nVidias options are there...that is as good as 9550 and cheap?

and about the analog input and digital...so what should i look out for in video cards for it to work with my LCD monitor? Which features are more favorable?

[glc]

128 should be fine. If your LCD monitor has a DVI connector and you have a DVI cable, get a card that has a DVI connector. Otherwise, it doesn't make a difference. Both those 9550's have a DVI and a standard VGA, so it will work fine no matter what.

I'm not a fan of the low end Nvidia cards. Their high end cards are excellent though. The FX5xxx series was just not one of Nvidia's better efforts. You would need to go up to a 6200 to get a decent low end Nvidia - but don't get a TC (turbocache) model, it shares system ram. One of those is going to cost you over $90 AUD.

[Ozzyfongz]

One last note before i order my GPU...what do i do to install it? Is it as simple as removing my old GPU and replacing with the new one? My old video card is a MSI Geforce 2 MX400.

btw...i'm ordering this:
XpertVision Radeon 9550, 128MB, DVI, TV-Out, AGP8X

All good?

[glc]

Before shutting down to swap the card, uninstall the Nvidia drivers. When it asks you to reboot, tell it no, then shut down.

[Ozzyfongz]

Okie~~ thanks...ordering my 9550 now

[Ozzyfongz]

Alright...i've got a dilemma here...the 9550 is out of stock...they're asking me to choose another card instead...so which one should i get?

The original R9550 128MB was AUD$77.50

I now have quite a few options, which one of these should i buy?
XpertVision GeForce FX5500, 128MB, DVI, TV-Out, AGP8X at $75.25
or
GeCube Radeon 9250, 128MB, DVI, TV-Out, AGP8X at $53.90
or
XpertVision Radeon 9550, 256MB, DVI, TV-Out, AGP8X at $91.65

Please judge by doing a price : performance comparison, and i'd still like to play a few of the new games even if i have to play in low res. If you are really nice, you can help me choose another card within the price range on the website (i have to order it from the same website as i was ordering some other stuff along with my graphics card), the options above were just a few i think would be wise choices from myself.

Sorry to bother you people once more, i'm not that knowledgable compared to you people on graphics card and comps. Thanks for the help in advance

[arthur666]

My FX5600Ultra (only a little faster than a FX5500) ran Far Cry and Unreal2004 beautifully on my last system(which was more similar to yours than my new one) with medium settings. Pacific fighters ran on higher settings and looked spectacular.

[Jaggannath]

Personally, I'd say still pay the little extra for the 5500 mate... what's $20 for a card that's a fair bit better

[Kiwi]

Originally Posted by arthur666 My FX5600Ultra (only a little faster than a FX5500) ran Far Cry and Unreal2004 beautifully on my last system(which was more similar to yours than my new one) with medium settings. Pacific fighters ran on higher settings and looked spectacular.

Actually, a 5600 Ultra is a LOT faster than a 5500, which is about the same as a 5200 Ultra -- in other words, not very fast at all. For pre-Dx9 graphics, the Radeon 9600 Pro and 5600 Ultra are about even (see www.gpureview.come to make one on one comparisons).

Any RAM on a 9550 beyond 128 is wasted, same thing on an FX series adapter. Keep looking for something similar to the 9550 or 9600, or if you get a good price on it, a 6200TC perhaps. If you can't wait, a 9200 was better than the FX 5500, and the 9250 is closer to a 5200 than to a 9200.

Depending on the AGE of games you are interested in, the Ti cards in the GF4 series may have just been Dx8, but they were better and faster than the FX's such as 5200, 5500, 5700se, and a lot of those are still in the retail channel, but at reduced prices, especially for the Ti 4200, which was actually a very good Dx8 adapter.

[Ozzyfongz]

alright...but can someone explain to me why 128MB+ is a waste on old cards?

[blue60007]

I can't really see how the slower cards could handle more than 128MB...the memory clock / bus would be too slow to move more than 128MB of data in and out of the RAM.

[Kiwi]

Originally Posted by Kiwi (see www.gpureview.com to make one on one comparisons). There was an "E" trailing the M that didn't belong! Any RAM on a 9550 beyond 128 is wasted, same thing on an FX series adapter. Keep looking for something similar to the 9550 or 9600, or if you get a good price on it, a 6200TC perhaps. If you can't wait, a 9200 was better than the FX 5500, and the 9250 is closer to a 5200 than to a 9200.

Older cards can only move data on a 64 Bit path, and thus can only get full use from 64 MB's - middle age cards such as the FX series and most of the Radeon 9xxx's, can benefit from 128 MB's, if the producer doesn't use degraded RAM (among the GF4's, it was common for 64 MB cards to run faster than 128 MB cards because of faster RAM).

[Ozzyfongz]

mmph...i've read on an article about how more memory only helps in extremely high resolutions on current games. I now know now. thanks neway.