Video cards nvidia FX VS Radeon ATI

by **Jowe** on Fri Oct 24, 2003 9:20 pm

just a word up for people who are looking for the ati radeon 9600 pro, u can grab on in sydney for $250aus

will probably get one after i pay off my bills :roll:

by **A.I.Rulez** on Fri Oct 24, 2003 10:52 pm

Jowe wrote:just a word up for people who are looking for the ati radeon 9600 pro, u can grab on in sydney for $250aus
will probably get one after i pay off my bills

I can buy it at $250 in Israel.
It's the cheapest card here.

by **bishibashiboy** on Sat Oct 25, 2003 1:04 am

celticslegend33 wrote:By default, it's in 100MHz. The board will automatically detect it as XP1600 (I think) at 100MHz. Right now, it's set in 133MHz, which will make it XP2200 and DDR400. I forgot what DDR the BIOS displays when set at 100MHz (DDR266, DDR333?).

hmm weird. I don't see why your board would automatically set its FSB at 100mhz. Normally they can autodetect what processor you have and select the appropriate spedds. For Athlon XPs, this means a FSB of 133mhz and higher, NOT 100mhz. So I dunno what's going on there with ya.
If you're right and it's set at 100mhz FSB by default that doesn't fit the spec of DDR memory at all, since the slowest DDR is DDR266 and that runs at 133mhz. Something very fishy here...

celticslegend33 wrote:How do I know when is enough? How about I try setting it at 166MHz right away?

Wait what are you referring to here? You're not suppozed to set anything at 166mhz in your computer since everything's running at 133mhz (FSB AND DDR) according to what you said earlier.

by **celticslegend33** on Sat Oct 25, 2003 12:23 pm

That's got me wondering, too. I mean, I know it should be automatically set at 133MHz but it is not. If my computer shop is guilty of tampering, don't you think my processor should be burned out by now? I had to set the FSB to 133MHz manually and asked their tech support afterwards for confirmation. By the way, only when I set to 133MHz will it make my memory DDR400 (instead of a lower memory clock speed).

I've been using my setup for 2 months now. So far, so good. Hehe!

When I said 166MHz, I meant manually adjusting the FSB to overclock (to make it 333MHz FSB) so I can have better processor clock speeds. :wink:

Anyway, are you going to use your current rig for NBA Live 2004? Or are you still going to upgrade it?

by **Jase23** on Sat Oct 25, 2003 12:35 pm

To all those who helped me before, finally got my new system today! just about to switch this old girl off and start 'moving in'

)

All i need is the PC game to be released!! or atleast a demo!!

by **celticslegend33** on Sat Oct 25, 2003 12:39 pm

Congratulations, Jase23. Hope you're happy with your new system. More importantly, hope it plays NBA Live 2004 just as you would expect it to be.

Egads... which reminds me... I WANNA UPGRADE MY #$%& FX5600 video card!!! Why does NBA Live 2004 have to take so damn long? :lol:

by **bishibashiboy** on Sat Oct 25, 2003 2:21 pm

Weird. I have no clue why your motherboard defaults to 100 mhz FSB.

As for overclocking your fsb to 166mhz, you could try it but beware of a few problems that i'll get to in a sec. Depending which revision your chip is (thoroughbred A, thoroughbred B) it may not overclock that much in your system.
Your overall clock speed is usually FSB x multiplier which in your case would be 133x13.5 = ~1800mhz. I'm assuming your multipliers are still locked so, if you up your FSB to 166 it will then be 166x13.5 = 2241mhz which may or may not be too high an overclock depending on your overall system. Regardless, I hope you have dividers to adjust your PCI and AGP because those are normally derived from your FSB value. If you don't have a PCI divider that can divide your FSB by 5 (166/5 = 33mhz - which is normal PCI speed), then you might be in trouble. You don't want your PCI bus to be clocked too far over spec cuz I've burned a few of my cheap PCI cards that way (mostly network cards).

I doubt I am gonna buy a new system before NBA live 2004 comes out. I got mine only about 1.5 years ago, and I don't feel like dropping another $1000 unless it's a LOT faster than my current system. :wink:

by **celticslegend33** on Sat Oct 25, 2003 7:24 pm

In that case, nevermind. I wouldn't want to risk burning my NICs.

by **Forky** on Sat Oct 25, 2003 11:37 pm

bishibashiboy wrote:Hey just wondering, what motherboard do you have? How come you're only using DDR333?

The motherboard is a Gigabyte board. Quite good, it's no Asus but it's still very good. It has a few expansion slots ready for when I buy a 6-in-1 memory card reader and other things.

Why DDR333? It squeezed into my budget. And when I say squeezed, I mean squeezed

. Same reason for the motherboard.

By the way people ... I love this thread!

by **bishibashiboy** on Sun Oct 26, 2003 2:45 am

Forky wrote:The motherboard is a Gigabyte board. Quite good, it's no Asus but it's still very good. It has a few expansion slots ready for when I buy a 6-in-1 memory card reader and other things.

Why DDR333? It squeezed into my budget. And when I say squeezed, I mean squeezed . Same reason for the motherboard.

By the way people ... I love this thread!

Oh well your computer is still pretty damn fast, so it's all good

I was always wondering about those 6-in-1 memory card readers since I have a canon digital camera too.

I'm glad you like the thread

I think we've done a pretty nice job is destroying the original intent of it (sorry Jase23 :oops:

) don't you think?

btw Jase23, how's the new computer coming along?

by **diafenes** on Sun Oct 26, 2003 7:31 pm

hey Jase23, did you say you had a ps2 gamepad connected to yr new computer? if so, what did you do? + how much did it set you back?
If anyone else knows how to set it up a ps2 gamepad to a pc, fire away....

by **Jase23** on Sun Oct 26, 2003 8:20 pm

Hello!

Yes im very proud of this thread, its by far the best one ive ever kicked off

The new PC is going great, man it goes like a rocket ship. Installed nba live 2003 and realised what i was missing out on in terms of graphics etc... and the games load up almost instantly!

Only prob is my tft monitor. When I fired it up I noticed it has a dead pixel, but the dam shop wont replace it coz they have silly rules like u have to have say 3 dead pixels within a square inch and stuff before they will replace it..... scumbags. When u spend the $$ u expect something that works 100% atleast at the start.

But anyways, the sound is awesome... sounds tons better than my stereo..... drives my wife crazy but u get that

I didnt end up getting the playstation pad to usb converter... the salesman said they can be a bit dodgy... so he sold me this dual analog pad called the Nostromo, by Belkin. Its very similar to a playstation pad. So far its ok, need to fiddle more with configurations i think. :wink:

by **bishibashiboy** on Mon Oct 27, 2003 6:16 am

Hey Jase23,

Sorry to hear about the dead pixel. That was one of the things I was warning you about with LCD monitors.
Is it really noticeable? The rule stinks I know, but it holds true for all places no matter where you buy them. That's why sometimes buying LCDs are a risk. Did you try contacting the manufacturer of your LCD?? The store you bought it at may not take it back, but I think there's a possibility the manufacturer will.

Does Live 2003 run at full details at good framerates now??

by **Jase23** on Mon Oct 27, 2003 8:28 am

bishibashiboy wrote:Hey Jase23,

Sorry to hear about the dead pixel. That was one of the things I was warning you about with LCD monitors.
Is it really noticeable? The rule stinks I know, but it holds true for all places no matter where you buy them. That's why sometimes buying LCDs are a risk. Did you try contacting the manufacturer of your LCD?? The store you bought it at may not take it back, but I think there's a possibility the manufacturer will.

Does Live 2003 run at full details at good framerates now??

Its not very noticeable really, but its one of those things where, once you know its there, u cant help but look for it and its so annoying. Apart from that the screen is great.

I'm having trouble contacting the manufacturer....... its made by CMV its a CT-722. Can't find any contact details. Its not over though ... im still fighting the place i got it from. I'll get consumer affairs on to them

2003 runs great... very high res and smooth as silk.........

by **Jowe** on Mon Oct 27, 2003 10:07 am

Nostromo, by Belkin

i'm using the exact same thing

its decent.

by **Jase23** on Mon Oct 27, 2003 3:34 pm

Jowe wrote:
i'm using the exact same thing its decent.

I dont think i have been able to configure it properly yet button wise, im gonna try again tonight and if i fail ill get back to you...

by **Jase23** on Mon Oct 27, 2003 3:36 pm

YAAAAAY! Getting my tft replaced. The manufacturer are going to pick it up from my house and drop off a replacement in a few days! Nice service.

by **burtots** on Thu Oct 30, 2003 3:56 pm

hey guys i just wanted to ask what's the difference between a geforce fx nd a geforce 4 ti? which is better?
And which is better geforce or ati radeon? PLs help me i wanted to play 2004 in max details.. tnx=)

by **bishibashiboy** on Thu Oct 30, 2003 5:42 pm

burtots wrote:hey guys i just wanted to ask what's the difference between a geforce fx nd a geforce 4 ti? which is better?
And which is better geforce or ati radeon? PLs help me i wanted to play 2004 in max details.. tnx=)

uhhh......didn't we cover this extensively in the first page already??
*sigh* well here goes anyways:

Geforce4 Ti is old (directx8) technology, while the GeforceFX series is their new line. However:
Geforce4 Ti4200 to Ti4600 > GeforceFX 5200 and 5600 ultra and non-ultra unless AA and AF are used. (yes counterintuitive, but trust me on this one.)

GeforceFX 5900 and 5950 are the current fastest Nvidia cards out and beat the Ti series, but are super expensive.
Overall Ati Radeon 9800 and 9800XT > any Geforce card when taking into account price, performance, image quality.

Geforce or Radeon is a matter or opinion. I like Ati and generally most ppl do too now.
Short answer: If you want to play future games (directx9) go ATI. If you play older games (directx8.1 and all versions before) either Radeon or Geforce are fine provided you buy the right boards.

by **BiggaAdams** on Thu Oct 30, 2003 8:52 pm

Stil debating what video card i should get, i have a ABIT motherboard with a xp 2500 BARTON 1024mb ddr i think 333mhz 512x2 (dual channel enabled) and i gotta say the dual channel ddr is f'n awesome, also onboard geforce4 mx video but i use my old geforce 2 mx card gets me by for now. I just havent had the time to research and pick what card i want, playing golf about 4 times a week lately lol

by **cocobee** on Sun Nov 09, 2003 1:01 pm

bishibashiboy

Hey bro, I went back to my TI 4600 and dl the new 52.16 drivers and I'm playing madden maxed out and it's playing smoother than ever at 1600x1024x32. I just can't wait for live 2004 pc now! :wink:

by **kp4life** on Sun Nov 09, 2003 2:40 pm

i have a question to you bishibashiboy

i have athlon 1800 xp+ 256 ram and radeon 7200 32mb and
nba live 2003 runs like crap in my computer
i set my deatail option in medium with 800x something x 16 urgg

i hate my computer........
hey bishi if i upgrade my graphic card will i'll be able to play nba live 2004
in max option? i heard cocobee has same comp as mine except he has
516 ram and geforce ti 4600 ..........
can you recommend me a good video card ? price lower than $200
thx~
oh btw i heard directx 9 effect won't be that big of deal because rarely only few games use directx 9 effect is this true? and in your opinon
what should i get? geforce card which runs smooth in directx 8.1 or ati radeon which i heard are not good as geforce in directx 8.1 performance
( i'm not talking about 9700 or 9800)

by **bishibashiboy** on Sun Nov 09, 2003 8:47 pm

cocobee wrote:Hey bro, I went back to my TI 4600 and dl the new 52.16 drivers and I'm playing madden maxed out and it's playing smoother than ever at 1600x1024x32. I just can't wait for live 2004 pc now!

Nice nice. I think you made a good choice going back to your Ti4600.

kp4life wrote:i have athlon 1800 xp+ 256 ram and radeon 7200 32mb and nba live 2003 runs like crap in my computer
i set my deatail option in medium with 800x something x 16 urgg
i hate my computer........

Don't worry it runs like crap on everyone's computer

kp4life wrote:hey bishi if i upgrade my graphic card will i'll be able to play nba live 2004 in max option?

No clue. I have yet to play the PC version of the game yet. I'll reserve judgment until then. I'd like to say yes, since I have a similar system to you (except more ram and faster graphics card).

kp4life wrote:can you recommend me a good video card ? price lower than $200
thx~

umm..depends how much lower than $200 you're willing to go. Ideally if you can find a Radeon 9800 non-pro for $200 you'd be good to pick one up as that would be an excellent buy. Failing that, try finding a Radeon 9600pro which definitely can be had at around $157USD now. Just look for the Sapphire brands instead of the Ati ones and make sure it's the PRO version.

kp4life wrote:oh btw i heard directx 9 effect won't be that big of deal because rarely only few games use directx 9 effect is this true?

True for the moment. But if you don't plan on upgrading the card again soon, I'd suggest you get a card capable of dx9 now. Radeon 9600pro and anything above it are still better than Nvidia products when it comes to dx9 due to better Shader implementation.

kp4life wrote:what should i get? geforce card which runs smooth in directx 8.1 or ati radeon which i heard are not good as geforce in directx 8.1 performance ( i'm not talking about 9700 or 9800)

You can't go wrong with either the new GeforceFX or the Radeon when it comes to dx8.1. GeforceFX cards do fine in dx8.1 and in some instances yes they do beat the Ati Radeon line. There are also instances where the Radeon will beat the GeforceFX line in dx8.1 as well. Depends on the game. However, when both cards are already running those games very fast, it's not that big a deal and you can't go wrong with either one.

In terms of dx9, for now, the Radeon line still beats the GeforceFX line in dx9 games. But the margin is not as big as before (kudos to Nvidia). If you want something that can play new dx9 games and play dx8.1 games just fine as well, stick with Ati. If you want something that plays dx8.1 slightly faster, but dx9 games definitely slower, go Nvidia.

Bottom line: if you're gonna drop ~$200 on a new card today, get one that can play dx9 games, unless you intend it to be a temporary solution.

by **mic1002** on Mon Nov 10, 2003 12:17 am

the Geforce FX5200 is enough to play live 2004?

by **kp4life** on Mon Nov 10, 2003 2:07 am

how is this card? Asylum GeForce FX 5200 Video Card, AGP, 128MB DDR
it's all about the price
i really wanted to buy radeon 9600 pro or 9800 nonpro but i don't have
that much money so i might have to wait another month or buy that card
for 69.99 after rebate
how do u think bishi?
and to cocobee
is this card good too?can u give me your computer system thinging
since u 've already tried this card how is it? would you recommend me this card or not? the price is pretty low that's the only reason i like about it
so give me ya'll's opinion~

Video cards nvidia FX VS Radeon ATI

Who is online