Thinking about a new graphics card

Itronix

Itronix

New Member
I have a HP a1250n with a 2.0 ghz AMD Athlon 64 X2, 1g of ram, a 250gb hard drive, and a 64mb ATI Radeon X200. Instead of purchasing another game system, I would like to upgrade my pc by installing a 500-600w power supply, a new graphics card, and a second 500gb hard drive.

I was considering an ATI X1650 (I believe that's about the full name) 256mb card. There is a saphire that is a 512mb on pricewatch, but I think it might only be for Vista. I believe the chip's processor is around 500-600 mhz? Do you think that this card would perform well enough to play games (if it comes out for pc) like GTA 4? I know you can't predict the future, but any opinion helps. I don't expect it to play the game at max quality, but I'd like it to be fairly close. Also, will the ambient temperature become too hot in the tower? Thanks.
 
well most games in the future will require directx 10 so instead of directx 9 so i would suggest getting vista. go with the 8800gts 640 or 768mb card. If your system can support it.
 
Last edited:
I have a similar CPU my rig below copes just about fine at 1280 x 1024 resolution in most games one being Armed Assault one of the hardest to run. You just got to think is this a tempory souping up of your PC or is it to make it able to run the best games for 3 more years? A 64mb card is way to low but weather a card is 512mb or how many Mhz it has isnt a good messure of the cards power. Look at the new ATI card the top of the range model has a main processor and 320 extra shader processors built onto it over 700 million transistors times that by the Mhz and you get what I mean. Its all about what fetures it has like what features a car engine has theirs more to car engines than RPM and how many litres it is. I have heard ATI plan to release the latest direct 10 card for AGP slot making ATI 2000 series cards by far the best choice for AGP computer owners and that or the 8800 Nvidia is what you need to keep your rig going for another 3 yrs. Just think in a year or two no card will run a game if it isn't atleast direct 10 and 700 million trasistors and just to scare you most games that are now in development are coded for quad core processors making even dual core already lacking in power for next gen games. But don't worry their will be fetures in the game you can turn off.

Add more ram 1GB is below what you need nowadays and so its bottle necking your rig after you upgrade the graphics card. I still use Nvidai 6800 but water cooled and clocked up get above this and more than 256MB memory.
 
Last edited:
CG man said:
I have a similar CPU my rig below copes just about fine at 1280 x 1024 resolution in most games one being Armed Assault one of the hardest to run. You just got to think is this a tempory souping up of your PC or is it to make it able to run the best games for 3 more years? A 64mb card is way to low but weather a card is 512mb or how many Mhz it has isnt a good messure of the cards power. Look at the new ATI card the top of the range model has a main processor and 320 extra shader processors built onto it over 700 million transistors times that by the Mhz and you get what I mean. Its all about what fetures it has like what features a car engine has theirs more to car engines than RPM and how many litres it is. I have heard ATI plan to release the latest direct 10 card for AGP slot making ATI 2000 series cards by far the best choice for AGP computer owners and that or the 8800 Nvidia is what you need to keep your rig going for another 3 yrs. Just think in a year or two no card will run a game if it isn't atleast direct 10 and 700 million trasistors and just to scare you most games that are now in development are coded for quad core processors making even dual core already lacking in power for next gen games. But don't worry their will be fetures in the game you can turn off.

Add more ram 1GB is below what you need nowadays and so its bottle necking your rig after you upgrade the graphics card. I still use Nvidai 6800 but water cooled and clocked up get above this and more than 256MB memory.
Click to expand...


i agree mad props:cool:
 
The $140 card would be in my budget. I'm not looking to invest a massive amount into this machine. I pretty much only play grand theft auto and shooting games that involve stealing cars, so nothing that really has special effects. I guess I could ghost my laptops os to my hp, so it will have Vista. The HP has XP Media Center Edition. Why would only having a gig of ram put it into a bind? Would the system not be able to keep up? It barely uses a half gig at almost all times.
 
The reason why I want an ATI is because I don't think that I can go another way. My 64mb ati is integrated, so it has an ati interface. I don't really want Vista on this computer until I have to. I probably will continue to play the same games for the life of the system, as well as other games of the like that come out. I mean, I beat Mafia about eight times, and I still enjoy it! Like I say, I don't need it to be perfect, but I would like it to play the games at high quality, but not necessarily at the maximum.
 
It doesn't matter that your intergrated card was ATI or even if you have a AMD chipset. Either card would run perfectly. The 8600gts is a much better card than the HD 2600xt, and it's cheaper too! I don't think you could get a better card at that price.
 
Ya 2gb if you run vista when its idle it takes up to 700mb of R.A.M so that really only leaves 324mb or R.A.M with one gig you see what they mean 2gb is recommended.
 
u can have any nvidia card 2 they have better preformance then MOST ati cards except if ur case cand support it like it being to small
 
You can't compare the specs, being as they are different cards utilizing a very different core and architecture.

You gotta compare benchies, in Which the 8600gts currently whups the 2600's arse. It can partly be blamed on the crappy driver the HD 2xxx lineup was released with, but mostly it's just cause the 8600gts is the more powerful card.

You guys were arguing over a slightly better picture quality when using ATI cards, I can't comment since I've never used one (not by choice!) :D
 
Roncharlespatton said:
Ya 2gb if you run vista when its idle it takes up to 700mb of R.A.M so that really only leaves 324mb or R.A.M with one gig you see what they mean 2gb is recommended.
Click to expand...
I know, but I have XP and don't plan on changing in the near future. My laptop has Vista Home Premium.

Ok, I'll have to check out Nvidia. One other thing; do you think the tower might get too hot? I'm kind of worried about that. Thanks.
 
ETSA said:
http://www.gpureview.com/show_cards.php?card1=513&card2=520

The 2600XT is better IMO..
Click to expand...


In gaming benchmark 8600GTS is by far much better

Here are some reviews
http://techreport.com/reviews/2007q3/radeon-hd-2400-2600/index.x?pg=1
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/radeon_hd_2600_performance_preview/page5.asp
http://anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3023&p=10
http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTM2MCwxLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA=


hermeslyre said:
You guys were arguing over a slightly better picture quality when using ATI cards, I can't comment since I've never used one (not by choice!) :D
Click to expand...

Are you comparing ATI X1xx to Nvidia 7 series ?

The new ATI HD series doesn't produce better image quality than Nvidia 8 series
 
Last edited:
maroon1 said:
Are you comparing ATI X1xx to Nvidia 7 series ?

The new ATI HD series doesn't produce better image quality than Nvidia 8 series
Click to expand...

Who me? I dunno, they're the ones that said it *points at ETSA and Kof2000*.

I believe they were talking of the cards in general, As in all ATI's have better default color settings or something to that effect.
 
ETSA said:
I am sure I could find just as many articles supporting ATI, if I was intent on arguing which was better, but instead lets focus on the original poster's question.
Click to expand...

Just find for me one article. It seems that you can trying to escape from this debate.....

And don't forget that my reviews were from one of the most reliable websites

EDIT: And you said in your previous post that HD2600XT is better. Your are posting incorrect information and we have the right to correct it.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top