Mon Nov 10, 2003 3:18 am
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~
Well, I initally got the card so i can see the dirty uniforms and such for madden 2004. But I could only play the game at 1024x768 and it ran ok. Now with the TI 4600 i could run madden maxed out at 1280x960x32. The game just ran better and the only difference was dirty to non dirty uniforms--but gameplay was better with the the TI 4600.
The 5200 was a good card, but I like to max everything out and play on high resolution, and still get good gameplay. You could probably get all that with the 5200 but just with a lower resolution.
My system is
amd 1800xp
windows xp
512 ddr
geforce ti 4600
Mon Nov 10, 2003 4:32 am
I was going to buy the Radeon 9600, but i didn't had the money.
But now I can only afford the Geforce FX5200.
Will it be good for the next 1-2 years with MAX options ?
But now I can only afford the Geforce FX5200.
Will it be good for the next 1-2 years with MAX options ?
Mon Nov 10, 2003 6:50 am
The FX5200 does what it should: it's a budget card that performs decently in older games/some current games but undoubtedly will be left behind the curve once the new games come around.
If you expect to play new dx9 games with it at 1024x768 with full details then you should look for a better card. The thing about dx9 games right now is not to look for a card that will RUN the game, but rather to look for a card that will run the game well. Budget cards such as the GeforceFX 5200 ARE dx9 capable, but you won't want to run them with dx9 options on since it'll run very slow. Therefore, it's as if you don't have a dx9 card at all right?
Newer games are starting to depend more on shader speed, which is relatively new and is independent of most of the things graphics card makers have been stressing in recent years (memory bandwidth). The GeforceFX series has very poor hardware shaders because of it's design. To alleviate this, Nvidia releases new drivers (with a real-time complier) that automatically replace shaders in popular games in order to take advantage of their own hardware. This helps their cards a lot but most likely will not help them enough to beat the Radeon series unless they specifically 'hand-optimize' certain games still. This means that when a BRAND NEW game comes out, it will most likely run slower than a comparable Radeon until they release their next drivers are released. By buying a GeforceFX this is what you will go thru with new games. The Radeon cards have good hardware shaders to begin with and don't have this problem.
When all is said and done and the two cards are compared (after Nvidia has released new drivers for the new game), the two are fairly close in most games, but the edge will still go to the Radeon due to better image quality overall.
Newer games such as Halo already choke my card (Radeon 9500pro) to the extent that I have to lower the resolution to 800x600 (w/ full details still) to avoid slowdowns in heavy firefights.
The only card that has a chance to last 2 years right now is probably in the class of a Radeon 9800 since graphics card technology moves very fast and is probably the single most expensive asset to a gaming machine right now.
Sorry for the long post but that's just a run-down of the current state of graphics cards. So it's really up to you guys. The GeforceFX is alright for what it does (plays older games alright) but will be unsuitable very soon. The budget Radeons (9100, 9200) are not dx9 cards and honestly I wouldn't buy one because they are not that fast. If you REALLY need a cheap graphics card today, then find an old Geforce4 Ti4200 (w/o Dx9 support) since they are still good cards and are a much better choice than the FX5200. Remember it's not dx9 but if you factor in that the FX5200 is painfully slow w/ dx9 options and is slower than the Ti4200 in dx8.1, the choice is clear. If you don't absolutely need a new card today, then wait a bit. It's not worth it to buy a GeforceFX 5200 and then have to replace it again half a year down the line. If you plan to wait it out, look for either a Radeon 9800 non-pro (best choice), a Radeon 9600pro or the new GeforceFX 5700 which is actually not too bad a card despite the shaders.
As for whether or not the FX5200 can play Live 2004 w/ full options here is the simple answer: i have no freaking clue. None of us do until the game is out. However, if we use Live 2003 as a baseline and assume they don't change ne thing with the rendering engine, I'm inclined to say it will not be enough unless you don't mind running it at <30fps. To me, that's unsuitable for a sports game which moves fairly quickly. For others, it's not too bad and can tolerate it. So it's up to you to decide what's good enough and what isn't. A minimum of ~60fps is what I would consider good enough, and is what a game should run at. Console games normally run at that framerate for sports games and it seems good enough. It's interesting to note that despite the Xbox version of Live 2004 being heavily optimized, I've played it and it slows down a bit when there's lots of movement in the paint. Live 2003 on the xbox had no such problems. A sign of things to come in the PC version too?
If you expect to play new dx9 games with it at 1024x768 with full details then you should look for a better card. The thing about dx9 games right now is not to look for a card that will RUN the game, but rather to look for a card that will run the game well. Budget cards such as the GeforceFX 5200 ARE dx9 capable, but you won't want to run them with dx9 options on since it'll run very slow. Therefore, it's as if you don't have a dx9 card at all right?
Newer games are starting to depend more on shader speed, which is relatively new and is independent of most of the things graphics card makers have been stressing in recent years (memory bandwidth). The GeforceFX series has very poor hardware shaders because of it's design. To alleviate this, Nvidia releases new drivers (with a real-time complier) that automatically replace shaders in popular games in order to take advantage of their own hardware. This helps their cards a lot but most likely will not help them enough to beat the Radeon series unless they specifically 'hand-optimize' certain games still. This means that when a BRAND NEW game comes out, it will most likely run slower than a comparable Radeon until they release their next drivers are released. By buying a GeforceFX this is what you will go thru with new games. The Radeon cards have good hardware shaders to begin with and don't have this problem.
When all is said and done and the two cards are compared (after Nvidia has released new drivers for the new game), the two are fairly close in most games, but the edge will still go to the Radeon due to better image quality overall.
Newer games such as Halo already choke my card (Radeon 9500pro) to the extent that I have to lower the resolution to 800x600 (w/ full details still) to avoid slowdowns in heavy firefights.
The only card that has a chance to last 2 years right now is probably in the class of a Radeon 9800 since graphics card technology moves very fast and is probably the single most expensive asset to a gaming machine right now.
Sorry for the long post but that's just a run-down of the current state of graphics cards. So it's really up to you guys. The GeforceFX is alright for what it does (plays older games alright) but will be unsuitable very soon. The budget Radeons (9100, 9200) are not dx9 cards and honestly I wouldn't buy one because they are not that fast. If you REALLY need a cheap graphics card today, then find an old Geforce4 Ti4200 (w/o Dx9 support) since they are still good cards and are a much better choice than the FX5200. Remember it's not dx9 but if you factor in that the FX5200 is painfully slow w/ dx9 options and is slower than the Ti4200 in dx8.1, the choice is clear. If you don't absolutely need a new card today, then wait a bit. It's not worth it to buy a GeforceFX 5200 and then have to replace it again half a year down the line. If you plan to wait it out, look for either a Radeon 9800 non-pro (best choice), a Radeon 9600pro or the new GeforceFX 5700 which is actually not too bad a card despite the shaders.
As for whether or not the FX5200 can play Live 2004 w/ full options here is the simple answer: i have no freaking clue. None of us do until the game is out. However, if we use Live 2003 as a baseline and assume they don't change ne thing with the rendering engine, I'm inclined to say it will not be enough unless you don't mind running it at <30fps. To me, that's unsuitable for a sports game which moves fairly quickly. For others, it's not too bad and can tolerate it. So it's up to you to decide what's good enough and what isn't. A minimum of ~60fps is what I would consider good enough, and is what a game should run at. Console games normally run at that framerate for sports games and it seems good enough. It's interesting to note that despite the Xbox version of Live 2004 being heavily optimized, I've played it and it slows down a bit when there's lots of movement in the paint. Live 2003 on the xbox had no such problems. A sign of things to come in the PC version too?
Mon Nov 10, 2003 8:40 am
ok i'm gonna listen to bishi
i'll just wait a month and buy radeon 9600 pro 256 mb just like bishi
recommended i can't really buy radeon 9800 non-pro because it's way
too expensive 200 something right?
i saw 9800 SE something with $168 but i guess it's not a good card
is radeon 9600 pro 256 mb really good? will this card last more than a year? how does this card runs in nba live 2003? athlon 1800 256 ram
and should i buy 9600 pro 256 mb or 128 mb ? because the price is the same why is that? and what's all this powercolar, gigacube, saphiry, and more company? can tell me a web site that has a good info like testing games and comparing cards and stuff? i heard geforce is good running games and radeon is good for watching movie and working with photoshops and stuff.... oh well, i asked too many question sorry bishi
and i really appreciate u answering all these questions thanks
bye~
i'll just wait a month and buy radeon 9600 pro 256 mb just like bishi
recommended i can't really buy radeon 9800 non-pro because it's way
too expensive 200 something right?
i saw 9800 SE something with $168 but i guess it's not a good card
is radeon 9600 pro 256 mb really good? will this card last more than a year? how does this card runs in nba live 2003? athlon 1800 256 ram
and should i buy 9600 pro 256 mb or 128 mb ? because the price is the same why is that? and what's all this powercolar, gigacube, saphiry, and more company? can tell me a web site that has a good info like testing games and comparing cards and stuff? i heard geforce is good running games and radeon is good for watching movie and working with photoshops and stuff.... oh well, i asked too many question sorry bishi
and i really appreciate u answering all these questions thanks
bye~
Mon Nov 10, 2003 11:12 am
kp4life wrote:ok i'm gonna listen to bishi
i'll just wait a month and buy radeon 9600 pro 256 mb just like bishi
recommended i can't really buy radeon 9800 non-pro because it's way
too expensive 200 something right?
i saw 9800 SE something with $168 but i guess it's not a good card
You could try your luck with a 9800SE. It is actually a downgraded 9800non-pro (4 pipelines instead of 8, and 128-bit bus instead of 256-bit) which performs about the same as a 9600pro. It IS possible to mod some of the 9800SE's if you get lucky and unlock the other 4 pipelines or you might be lucky and have one with a 256-bit bus already. Either way it's a risk and there's no guarantee what you might get.
kp4life wrote:is radeon 9600 pro 256 mb really good? will this card last more than a year? how does this card runs in nba live 2003? athlon 1800 256 ram
and should i buy 9600 pro 256 mb or 128 mb ? because the price is the same why is that?
The 9600pro is a good card that overclocks like crazy. Will it last a year? It depends what you play and how tolerant you are of framerates. What games do you play?
I have almost the same specs as you with an overclocked Radeon 9500pro and I can tell you I cannot run Live 2003 on max settings at 1024x768 @ 60fps+. I max out at around 35fps. Every other dx8.1 game i can run at 60fps, but not this one. That says something about EA sports' PC department right there. 35fps for this game is NOT good enough. It seriously makes me want to barf. Other games such as Halo are fine at 30fps, but not sports games.
As for whether to buy 256 or 128 if you can get 256 for the same price +/- $10-15 then go for it. Anymore then no.
There is no perceivable difference right now btwn 256 and 128megs unless you play at VERY high resolutions (1600x1200) and turn on 6Xantialiasing and 16Xanisotropic filtering which are memory hogs. Honestly, with this card you won't be doing that.
kp4life wrote:and what's all this powercolar, gigacube, saphiry, and more company?
Those are all 3rd party companies that also produce the Radeon series of cards. Basically Ati sells them the chip and they do whatever the hell they want to do with it. Some put slower memory to cut costs, some have better game bundles, some may have Tv-out, etc. Overall, most stick to the reference design set by Ati so therefore, aside from a few changes to the fans there is very little difference btwn buying Ati and Sapphire/Powercolor/Gigacube..etc.
kp4life wrote:can tell me a web site that has a good info like testing games and comparing cards and stuff? i heard geforce is good running games and radeon is good for watching movie and working with photoshops and stuff....
There are tons of sites but here's a few:
http://www.anandtech.com
http://www.tomshardware.com <-- very biased nowadays
http://www.hardocp.com
http://www.firingsquad.com
http://www.beyond3d.com
kp4life wrote:oh well, i asked too many question sorry bishi
and i really appreciate u answering all these questions thanks
no probs. Buying graphics cards sucks serious ass these days i know
Mon Nov 10, 2003 11:54 am
i play games like fifa 2004, gta vice city, warcraft frozen throne, midnightclub 2, commandos 3, c&c but i can't play all of them because
it runs like crap in my computer especially midnightclub and c&c ... u know i have radeon 7200
if i buy radeon 9600 will i'll be able to tell the difference right away from
7200? i can't wait to see what other games would look like with 9600 pro .......... i don't know what you're talking about with 30 and 60 ? can you explain them and where the option is in the game? or it automatically sets up ? that really make difference in the game?
thank you sooooooooo much bishi
it runs like crap in my computer especially midnightclub and c&c ... u know i have radeon 7200
if i buy radeon 9600 will i'll be able to tell the difference right away from
7200?
i can't wait to see what other games would look like with 9600 pro .......... i don't know what you're talking about with 30 and 60 ? can you explain them and where the option is in the game? or it automatically sets up ? that really make difference in the game?
thank you sooooooooo much bishi
Mon Nov 10, 2003 4:41 pm
kp4life wrote:i play games like fifa 2004, gta vice city, warcraft frozen throne, midnightclub 2, commandos 3, c&c but i can't play all of them because it runs like crap in my computer especially midnightclub and c&c ... u know i have radeon 7200
Seeing how I have the same processor as you and my 9500pro is pretty much the same speed as the 9600pro (give or take 5% faster/slower in certain cases) I think I can judge for you how well these games will run. Ok for sure Vice city will run great because I played that game to death and it runs flawlessly even with AA and AF on at very high levels.
Warcraft should run fine too..Midnight club 2 i have the demo and it runs great.
Not sure about commandos 3, but C&C runs great.
Basically most of the games you listed should run great if you got a Radeon 9600pro and this I know for sure.
kp4life wrote:if i buy radeon 9600 will i'll be able to tell the difference right away from 7200?
I've never had a 7200 so I can't really say. But I went from a Radeon 9000non-pro to the 9500pro and it's been a big jump in every game except Nba Live 2003. I still think this game is bottlenecked by cpu speed rather than graphics card.
kp4life wrote:i can't wait to see what other games would look like with 9600 pro .......... i don't know what you're talking about with 30 and 60 ? can you explain them and where the option is in the game? or it automatically sets up ? that really make difference in the game?
thank you sooooooooo much bishi
It's not an option within the game, but rather it's an indication of how fast your system can render the game. 30fps means 30 frames per second. The higher the # of frames per second your graphics card/system can display, the better your games run and won't look at "choppy" and the easier it is to control. Ideally you want to play everything above 60fps because for most ppl at that point images seem FLUID. I think pretty much above 85fps most people can't tell the difference anymore. So basically, the reason ppl buy faster graphics cards is so that games will not be as sluggish and be more playable.
If you still dunno what I mean do this with Nba live 2003: turn it to 1024x768 and turn everything to max details. Then turn it down to 640x480 and turn all the details off. You'll notice it's much easier to control and that the game FEELS more life-like and fluid (even though it looks like shit) when at 640x480 with details off simply because you're not putting as much of a workload on your graphics card and system.
Mon Nov 10, 2003 7:24 pm
so my FX 5200 card can play live 2004 or not?
Tue Nov 11, 2003 7:36 am
Of course the FX can play it.
No one knows how well it can play with max details.
All of this has already been covered.
No one knows how well it can play with max details.
All of this has already been covered.
Thu Nov 13, 2003 8:22 pm
hey guys,
i have a question regarding the graphic card system requirements:
it says that ur card must directx 9 compatible,
but i think my card-gf2ti 64mbddr- only supports directx8.1.
can i still play this nbalive 2004?
i have a question regarding the graphic card system requirements:
it says that ur card must directx 9 compatible,
but i think my card-gf2ti 64mbddr- only supports directx8.1.
can i still play this nbalive 2004?
Thu Nov 13, 2003 9:13 pm
bornok wrote:hey guys,
i have a question regarding the graphic card system requirements:
it says that ur card must directx 9 compatible,
but i think my card-gf2ti 64mbddr- only supports directx8.1.
can i still play this nbalive 2004?
Me friend has a Geforce 2 64MB and he says it's run good at his computer.
Not great, but good enough.
Tue Nov 18, 2003 10:06 am
a yo bishi
how does your comp runs live 2004 comparing to 2003?
is it same or better?
will i'll be able to run it well on 9600 pro?
since the game is out is ati card work better or geforce?
how does your comp runs live 2004 comparing to 2003?
is it same or better?
will i'll be able to run it well on 9600 pro?
since the game is out is ati card work better or geforce?
Tue Nov 18, 2003 11:31 am
kp4life wrote:a yo bishi
how does your comp runs live 2004 comparing to 2003?
is it same or better?
will i'll be able to run it well on 9600 pro?
since the game is out is ati card work better or geforce?
I just got it last night.
I wrote my experiences so far in the Live 2004 Technical Issues:
http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/~nbalive/ph ... 6088#96088