Buying a new videocard

I'm interested in purchasing a new videocard for NBA Live 2004 but I need some suggestions. I'm using an HP Pavillion PC right now which I got for free about two years ago.

Some info:

Window ME
20GB HD
Intel Chipset 82810 - Used for graphics but this isn't even a real videocard
64MB RAM - I'm planning on upgrading it to 128MB
833mhz

It's not that bad playing with Live 2003 because everything works fine, but the game isn't smooth and it often lags. I've grown tired of playing in low settings. I don't even know if Live 2004 will even be playable in since I've heard that tons of graphics will be added, such as the courts and the cutscenes (drafts, trading players, ingame, etc).

My budget is $100. I'm using the $30 to buy Live 2004 and the rest for a videocard. Now I just need some help on which I should get.. It needs to be less than $70 but it has to give out a decent performance, enough for Live 2004.

I saw this the other day at CompUSA but I want to hear some thoughts if it's good (preferably from people who have used it before).

hmmm, its pretty hard to find a good videocard 4 only 70$, i would have suggested u Radeon 7200 but i guess its more than 100$,,

hmmm, its pretty hard to find a good videocard 4 only 70$, i would have suggested u Radeon 7200 but i guess its more than 100$,,

umm no it aint....i have the radeon 8500 and i bought it for 200 but its now under 100...and its still good for all my games...moer then good

One word: EBAY.

I looked on froogle and your best bet for $70 US is an ATI 9000. Don't bother with the 7000 (it's quite old) and whatever you do don't get a GF4 MX series card. regular GF4s are good (I have a 4400) but the MX series is craptastic.

Oh and since you're using an HP system you might have to take it into a shop to get it upgraded (or get an uber-nerd to do it). HP has a bad habit of making its systems very upgrade unfriendly.

I'm more familiar with geforce cards...so i'd suggest the card im using right now..which is a Geforce Ti 4200. You can prolly get one online for about 70 bucks. Check http://pricewatch.com

Yep Yohance is right.
If you can, get a Geforce4 ti4200.
Failing that, try to find a Radeon 9100/8500LE. It's kinda old now, but it's faster than the 9200pro, 9000pro, Geforce4mx series. Basically, it's the fastest budget card short of a Geforce4 Ti4200 and costs around $70 or most likely less.

Does your machine have an AGP slot? I noticed you have onboard video and back when your machine was built onboard video was at the expense of an AGP slot. If you are not sure you can open up your machine and look between the white PCI slots and your Processor, if you see a brown slot there then you are in luck. If not you will need a PCI video card.

If you need a PCI card then I would check out www.newegg.com

They have a PCI Geforce4 MX440 with 64MB DDR manufactured by PNY for $68.00 and free shipping. This is the card I would recommend for you. Regardless of what card you get look for one with DDR over SDRAM. DDR ram is much quicker although it will be somewhat limited by the slow PCI slot. The card that you saw at Comp USA is bad.

At this sort of price level I would recommend Nvidia over ATI as they have superior drivers.

After video card your biggest problem is going to be memory. With 64mb-128mb you will find that windows is going to frequently use your hard drive as "virtual memory" which is going to cause constant stuttering as the disk accesses. So even if your system can handle Live's graphics it is going to stutter and you'll be back where you started. Try and get 256MB or even better 512mb if you have the cash.

If you are ordering online always run the dealers name through www.resellerratings.com and always pay with a credit card.

I hope that helps.

Whoa Refuze....I use to be like that HP Pavilion PC with Windows ME it ran 2003 like it was GOD but it gayed up after i cleared out the whole computer (which means you change it back to the way it was bought) and i downloaded win xp home and now i can't play Live 03.....I miss the game...

Actually, nvidia no longer has superior drivers over Ati.
In fact, with the new det 50 and up drivers, image quality has been shown to be reduced a great deal compared to the 45 drivers because the new nvidia line sucks ass and is very slow in dx9. To offset this they decided to degrade image quality for framerate. So if those are your superior drivers...then

but anyways, I'm sure he has an agp slot. The last motherboards w/o one were waaay back before Pentium II's.

Actually, nvidia no longer has superior drivers over Ati.
In fact, with the new det 50 and up drivers, image quality has been shown to be reduced a great deal compared to the 45 drivers because the new nvidia line sucks ass and is very slow in dx9. To offset this they decided to degrade image quality for framerate. So if those are your superior drivers...then

Considering that NBA Live 2004 to the best of my knowledge is not going to be utilising DirectX 9.0 rendering techniques or 2.0 Pixel Shaders then this is a moot point isn't it?

Secondly the 50 series drivers have not been released yet and you are basing your opinion on leaked beta's.

Thirdly we are not talking about the new Nvidia line, we are talking about a PCI budget video card here. The rumoured reduction in image quality is not going to effect this particular card as he is not likely to be playing in 1600x1200 with anisiostroptic fiiltering and anti-aliasing now is he?

Finally, when it comes to budget video cards Nvidia's drivers are far more stable and compatible than ATI"s. Thats a fact. Stop trying to compare apple and oranges.

And I doubt he would have an AGP slot due to the on board video. Yes AGP slots were around, but they were rarely in tandem with on board video when his machine was manufactured.

Considering that NBA Live 2004 to the best of my knowledge is not going to be utilising DirectX 9.0 rendering techniques or 2.0 Pixel Shaders then this is a moot point isn't it?

Secondly the 50 series drivers have not been released yet and you are basing your opinion on leaked beta's.

Thirdly we are not talking about the new Nvidia line, we are talking about a PCI budget video card here. The rumoured reduction in image quality is not going to effect this particular card as he is not likely to be playing in 1600x1200 with anisiostroptic fiiltering and anti-aliasing now is he?

Finally, when it comes to budget video cards Nvidia's drivers are far more stable and compatible than ATI"s. Thats a fact. Stop trying to compare apple and oranges.

And I doubt he would have an AGP slot due to the on board video. Yes AGP slots were around, but they were rarely in tandem with on board video when his machine was manufactured.

Interesting. Thanks for the note.

Considering that NBA Live 2004 to the best of my knowledge is not going to be utilising DirectX 9.0 rendering techniques or 2.0 Pixel Shaders then this is a moot point isn't it?

nope since image quality is reduced in general, not just in ps 2.0 situation. Case in point, UT2003.

Secondly the 50 series drivers have not been released yet and you are basing your opinion on leaked beta's.

true but it's quite unlikely that nvidia will be able to boost performance of their det 50's a whole 2X (needed to catch the 9800pro) in ps2.0 w/o degrading image quality. Furthermore, since nvidia wanted people to use the det 50's in the half life 2 benchmarks, i feel they are legit enough for me to base arguments about them as well. Besides, given what has happened the past while, nvidia's rep has gone down the toilet and many people do not trust them or their drivers anymore. I for one don't, not until they can prove to have an equal if not superior product to the competition w/o resorting to cheating and PR tricks. You know something is wrong when a company's drivers output a HIGHER image quality screenshot then what they're actually displaying in the game or when you rename an executable (ie. 3dmark03.exe) you get a lower score than the default..hmm..
It's really sad they can't recapture the impressiveness of the Geforce4 Ti line. That was killer until the 9700pro was put out.

Thirdly we are not talking about the new Nvidia line, we are talking about a PCI budget video card here. The rumoured reduction in image quality is not going to effect this particular card as he is not likely to be playing in 1600x1200 with anisiostroptic fiiltering and anti-aliasing now is he?

You don't need to be running in 1600x1200 with AF and AA in order to see reduction in image quality. The drivers do that for you in any and every mode regardless of your graphics card. That's what ppl are complaining about, the lack of ability to turn off these cheats.

Finally, when it comes to budget video cards Nvidia's drivers are far more stable and compatible than ATI"s. Thats a fact. Stop trying to compare apple and oranges.

Prove it is a fact. I have used both company's low end cards extensively (geforce2mx and radeon 9000, 9100, 9200) and i don't encounter these incapatibilities/stability problems. Stop going by word of mouth and start going by personal experience. Again, prove to me that the nvidia drivers are FAR more stable than ati ones for their budget cards. And define stability. Mine have never crashed on me irrepairably with either of the cards. If you were talking about the Radeon 8500 with pre-catalyst drivers you might have a point. But not now.
On a side-note, Ati's driver problems are VERY overstated, while Nvidia's problems are highly understated. Case in point: d/l nvidia's drivers and look at their list of bug fixes. If they are really as perfect as people always make them out to be there should be little to none. Not so.

And I doubt he would have an AGP slot due to the on board video. Yes AGP slots were around, but they were rarely in tandem with on board video when his machine was manufactured.

Interesting. I guess I've been spoiled recently with all the talk about the nforce2 chipsets having IGPs and AGP slots. I stand corrected.

What about these?

EA do support NVidia. Take a look at NBA LIVE 2003, it has Nvidia logo all over.

try to check these things out:
1.see if 2004 uses DirectX9, if not, a DirectX8 display card will do.
2.see if 2004 works better with ATi cards than nVidia's, that's the case happened in 2003.
(the above two things can be determined after the release )
3.see if your mainboard has an AGP slot available, if not, you will need a PCI display card instead.
4.try to find a display card that have TV-out, the function can let you play the game with a TV, so you don't need to consider the disastrous effect bought by AA and AF-a 3D game will still look good on a TV without these functions.
5.personally think that 9100 will meet your requirement

Finally, believe me, NBA Live is demanding...so please never expect you will get a smooth gameplay without 256mb ram and 1GHz CPU...

What about these?

The 9100 is the best of these cards.

Oh and since you're using an HP system you might have to take it into a shop to get it upgraded (or get an uber-nerd to do it). HP has a bad habit of making its systems very upgrade unfriendly.

This is very true refuze, i have the same onboard video card as u do and its what i have been playing live 2003 on for the last year now. I bought a geforce 4 mx 420 and i havent gotten it to work even now and that was over a year ago. It ended up being a waste of money. Made me wish i hadnt bought an HP pc to begin with. The only differnce is i have 128 mb memory and 40 gig space and 1ghz on a pentium 3 otherwise we are in the same boat. Live 2003 was playable on lower settings but your right, the low detail gets to u after a time. You probably dont have an agp slot since i dont so make sure u get a pci card. Anyone know any solutions for getting the upgrade done properly ?

Considering that NBA Live 2004 to the best of my knowledge is not going to be utilising DirectX 9.0 rendering techniques or 2.0 Pixel Shaders then this is a moot point isn't it?

nope since image quality is reduced in general, not just in ps 2.0 situation. Case in point, UT2003.

I'm using the leaked 50's and I haven't noticed any image reduction but thats just me. I still see it as a moot point. If he was considering an FX5900 or a Radeon 9800 Pro then this would be something to consider.

Secondly the 50 series drivers have not been released yet and you are basing your opinion on leaked beta's.

true but it's quite unlikely that nvidia will be able to boost performance of their det 50's a whole 2X (needed to catch the 9800pro) in ps2.0 w/o degrading image quality. Furthermore, since nvidia wanted people to use the det 50's in the half life 2 benchmarks, i feel they are legit enough for me to base arguments about them as well. Besides, given what has happened the past while, nvidia's rep has gone down the toilet and many people do not trust them or their drivers anymore. I for one don't, not until they can prove to have an equal if not superior product to the competition w/o resorting to cheating and PR tricks. You know something is wrong when a company's drivers output a HIGHER image quality screenshot then what they're actually displaying in the game or when you rename an executable (ie. 3dmark03.exe) you get a lower score than the default..hmm..
It's really sad they can't recapture the impressiveness of the Geforce4 Ti line. That was killer until the 9700pro was put out.

I would agree with all of this, but again it's not relevent to this gentlemans video card purchase. You should be leery however of Valve's and ATI"s claims. ATI and Nvidia were in a bidding war over who would get the rights to package their flagship card with a special "optomised" version of HL2. Nvidia backed out when the bidding hit 8 Million. I'm not saying that this accounts for or excuses poor Nvidia performance but something to consider when listening to Valve.

Thirdly we are not talking about the new Nvidia line, we are talking about a PCI budget video card here. The rumoured reduction in image quality is not going to effect this particular card as he is not likely to be playing in 1600x1200 with anisiostroptic fiiltering and anti-aliasing now is he?

You don't need to be running in 1600x1200 with AF and AA in order to see reduction in image quality. The drivers do that for you in any and every mode regardless of your graphics card. That's what ppl are complaining about, the lack of ability to turn off these cheats.

Again this is subject to change, the so called image reductions haven't bothered me personally.

Finally, when it comes to budget video cards Nvidia's drivers are far more stable and compatible than ATI"s. Thats a fact. Stop trying to compare apple and oranges.

Prove it is a fact. I have used both company's low end cards extensively (geforce2mx and radeon 9000, 9100, 9200) and i don't encounter these incapatibilities/stability problems. Stop going by word of mouth and start going by personal experience. Again, prove to me that the nvidia drivers are FAR more stable than ati ones for their budget cards. And define stability. Mine have never crashed on me irrepairably with either of the cards. If you were talking about the Radeon 8500 with pre-catalyst drivers you might have a point. But not now.
On a side-note, Ati's driver problems are VERY overstated, while Nvidia's problems are highly understated. Case in point: d/l nvidia's drivers and look at their list of bug fixes. If they are really as perfect as people always make them out to be there should be little to none. Not so.

Yes ATI's drivers have come a long way but there are still plenty of problems. It is getting better all the time. I work with graphics cards every day as part of my job and in my personal experience Nvidia drivers are more stable. There are still plenty of quirks with ATI. Bright crazy looking colours for players in Fifa 2003 etc. I'm not some Nvidia fan boy, if you want a high end card go ATI, want low end go Nvidia. Just my opinion.

try to check these things out:
1.see if 2004 uses DirectX9, if not, a DirectX8 display card will do.

Live will require DirectX 9.0, but there is a difference between DirectX 9.0 rendering techniques (ie. new techniques introduced with this version) and a game requiring DX9.0.

I'm using the leaked 50's and I haven't noticed any image reduction but thats just me. I still see it as a moot point. If he was considering an FX5900 or a Radeon 9800 Pro then this would be something to consider.

I'm not sure about that. I've seen people complaining about their Ti4200's being worse as well with the leaked betas. Some people went as far to say that the Det42's were the last drivers before ANY of these optimizations were made. Interesting to say the least though. I haven't tried the leaked betas myself.

You should be leery however of Valve's and ATI"s claims. ATI and Nvidia were in a bidding war over who would get the rights to package their flagship card with a special "optomised" version of HL2. Nvidia backed out when the bidding hit 8 Million. I'm not saying that this accounts for or excuses poor Nvidia performance but something to consider when listening to Valve.

Well, I've never heard anything of the version of HL2 being bundled with the winner being optimized in any way. I seriously doubt it. Although, in the case with HL2, it's already a moot point since Valve ALREADY made an optimized path for nvidia's line and it still runs like crap. So if anybody got favorable treatment, it's already nvidia and they didn't even win the bid
Besides, if we are to look at things in such a cynical way, we should be looking at nvidia and their "The Way It's Meant to Be Played" program. Does this mean every game that's part of their HUGE list (including Live 2004) will be specially optimized for nvidia cards?

Again this is subject to change, the so called image reductions haven't bothered me personally.

That's good. I seriously hope they can fix their problems. Compeition in the market is always good. It just doesn't look up for them from what I've heard of their drivers.

Yes ATI's drivers have come a long way but there are still plenty of problems. It is getting better all the time. I work with graphics cards every day as part of my job and in my personal experience Nvidia drivers are more stable. There are still plenty of quirks with ATI. Bright crazy looking colours for players in Fifa 2003 etc. I'm not some Nvidia fan boy, if you want a high end card go ATI, want low end go Nvidia. Just my opinion.

Still not sure about that. If you're looking at low end cards, there's no question for money and performance, the 9100 kills the Geforce4MX line hands down. It's the best budget card short of the Geforce4 Ti4200, and I would never recommend a Geforce4mx over the 9100. But like you said it's your opinion and I'll respect that.

Live will require DirectX 9.0, but there is a difference between DirectX 9.0 rendering techniques (ie. new techniques introduced with this version) and a game requiring DX9.0.

I thought you said it's not a dx9 game? Or do you mean they'll just require dx9 installed but won't really use any of the advanced features?

Last edited by bishibashiboy on Mon Sep 29, 2003 4:28 am, edited 2 times in total.

oh refuze, I wouldn't recommend using the tv-out as someone suggested earlier. I've tried that before with games. It's not good at all. It's blurry and you lose whatever advantage graphically the game might have on a pc.
I think you should seriously consider upgrading your whole system in some way rather than buying a new graphics card right now. I really think you'll be wasting your money buying a pci card that's already obsolete and won't provide you with much performance for your computer. Basically computers suck. If your whole system was alright and you just needed a graphics card, that's when you should look for one. But if your whole system is slow already, buying a faster graphics card will do little for u in the long run and you'll end up spending another $100 buying a new graphics card immediately if you got a new computer sometime. I'm quite sure you'll see only little gain from the geforce4mx pci over your current system. You'll see something, but don't expect it to be huge.

Another problem with Live, at least 2003, was that it was very cpu bound, meaning its performance was limited to what your cpu was capable of. I've tried many things to make the game run faster. In the end, putting a faster graphics card in didn't do nearly as much as overclocking my cpu. Just keep that in mind since Live 2004 is still using the same game engine, and from what I've heard, EA does very little optimizing for the pc version.

I thought you said it's not a dx9 game? Or do you mean they'll just require dx9 installed but won't really use any of the advanced features?

Yep exactly. DirectX 9.0 will be a requirement, but they will not use any of DirectX 9.0's new capabilities. I could be wrong however, there aren't many articles discussing Live 2004's graphics in depth like you see with Halflife 2 or Doom3.

for that price range, you should look for a ati radeon 9200se, i got one here in OZ for 99dollars which is like 50-60 american...