I need help comparing two cards.

Martix_agent

Martix_agent

New Member
I'm new here, but have looked at the stickies and they really didn't answer my question. If I missed something, please point me towards it.

I'm on a limited busdget *edited from $65 because it was causing controversy* and I have an AGP 8x slot. I do not have the money to buy a new possessor and motherboard so don't even suggest it. Now I've heard that motherboards accept both pci express and agp, I'm fairly certain this isn't the case though. which is correct? This is my motherboard

I don't have a DVI monitor, so there's not any need to get one with dual AVI outputs. further down the road I'll probably get one, and then use my current monitor as a second one anyhow.(it's cheaper that way)

I've been pricing cards, and I'm torn between the two compared here:
http://www.gpureview.com/show_cards.php?card1=369&card2=434
Is it better to have a higher shader operation, or to have higher pixel and texture fill rate?
 
Last edited:
The link to the two cards doesn't work, what are they called?

No, only some MOBO's can take PCI-e and AGP, but they're very rare...

Your motherboard has an AGP slot, so you'd need an AGP card...
 
aw crap. I'll get the link back up. I gotta go flip porkchops and then I'll work on it.

edit:
link fixed.
 
Last edited:
first off there is no AGP card w/ 512mb under 65 bucks

second if youre spending 65 on a card then it wont be able to run anygame to the point where yo're using over 256mb of Vram
 
Last edited:
99F said:
first off there is no AGP card w/ 512mb under 65 bucks

second if youre spending 65 on a card then it wont be able to run anygame to the point where yo're using over 256mb of Vram
Click to expand...

alright then, forget the price. What do you think of the cards I'm comparing? ar they good 512 mb cards? or should I just go for a 256 card?
 
Any video card thats in the sub $150 range would be pointless with 512MB over 256MB, as they arent high performing cards to begin with.
 
can you elaborate on that further?

What's the point in making a card that won't reform to it's capacity? Is it just a marketing gimmick to lure in ignorant buyers like myself?

to clarify, I'm wanting a directx 9 card that will play team fortress 2 in medium/high graphics. I've currently got a 128 mg geforce FX5200 that won't support directx9(even though it says it will, it either does not, or does it very poorly) TF2 randomly freezes up and I have to play it on all low settings, leaving the quality of the game out of my reach.
I know if i wanted to get something better, I'd almost have to move on to a pci express port of better, and I simply can't afford that.
 
Last edited:
Out of those two, I think I'd go with the 7600, that's just my opinion. Also, like Koff said, you could get a 9600 Pro.
 
so I take it that pixel and texture fill rate is more important than shader operation?

also, a few of you have suggest that I NOT get a 512 card because the full extent of it will never be used. How true is this? should I really be looking at a 256 instead?
 
I've never really noticed the difference between a 256 and a 512 card with the same clock speeds and what not. I don't know, maybe I'm just not that observant. I'd have to say go with the 7600.
 
I think I found something that beats the geforce 7600GT. the ATi Radeon X800 AGP,ATi Radeon X800 Pro AGP or ATi Radeon X800 XTAGP

Apparently you can flash the x800 and x800 pro to open 4 pipelines that the xt has. Think it would be worth buying a x800 for cheaper and trying it?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top