16 réponses à ce sujet

[Monstruo696]

I ask because I'm a pretty poor (in terms of knowledge more than finance) computer guy
and most of my Steam friends I've asked have no clue either, so I come
asking here in case there are any computer pros lurking about. 

My graphics card has started sputtering (literally), and it seems I'm in need of a new one.  I've set a budget of ~$100 to buy a new graphics card and found this.

Has anyone used that brand and/or model before?

Do you think it will run DA:O smoothly?

Have you seen a better deal elsewhere?

[Hierarch555]

I have a similar card and it runs DA: O on max, Fallout 3 on high, and Oblivion on medium? Yeah, I don't get that last one either...

[GhoXen]

Have you checked on price for HD5750? I think it might be close to that. It's not the best card out there, but it's the only DX11 card your budget can possibly get.

[Gorath Alpha]

A lot of newer cards are in realtively short supply due to still-marginal rates of success on the latest, thinnest dies. 

Here's an excellent price on an HD 4670,  the 2009 Bang for a Buck leader for $80, at Newegg:

www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx

Gorath
-

[Monstruo696]

I dunno, I don't trust ATI. Always hear that a bunch of games usually have graphical glitches with them.

[Sheylan]

Monstruo696 wrote...

I dunno, I don't trust ATI. Always hear that a bunch of games usually have graphical glitches with them.

Only because, in the past, some games have run "suspiciously" poorly on them compared to equivalent Nvidia cards. There is significant evidence that it had nothing to do with cards and everything to do with the developers. Currently, ATI cards are easily on par with, and possibly supirior to Nvidia. And DA:O runs just fine on ATI cards, i'm using a Radeon HD 4850 atm. Which actualy isn't much more than 100$ right now. (130 on Newegg I believe).

[Tyrax Lightning]

Edit: Deleted the link to this card choice because it's been trumped. For a link to the trumping card, see below.

Modifié par Tyrax Lightning, 11 janvier 2010 - 06:58 .

[Monstruo696]

So ATI no longer has that many problems, then? I admit, some of the specs for the $80-$150 ATI cards are much better than the $120-$175 nVidia Cards.

I'll see, I'll buy one in a couple of days so if anyone still has an suggestions, feel free to post 'em!

EDIT:

http://www.newegg.co...N82E16814161288

Found this as well, does anyone have experience with fan-less cards?  My tower has 3 fans (PwrSpply/MOBO/Outtake) so I'm wondering if I could run this one like that since I've been having fan troubles with my current card.

Modifié par Monstruo696, 18 novembre 2009 - 01:25 .

[Realmjumper]

That radiator is large so make sure you have space. I have a lot of experience with cards an dbuilding pcs in general. For hassle free drivers it's Nvidia all the way. For greater value it's ATI. If you aren't afraid to trouble shoot once in a while get the ATI card. Make sure that you got a sufficient power supply for it. Here's a good website to compare and I got a comparison on there for ya.



http://www.gpureview...1=575&card2=566



Pay attention to the product pictures because the XFX one is powered by the motherboard while the ATI you need to hook up to your power supply. It's not difficult to do so no worries just make sure depending on which card you get.



I have a 4870 from Sapphire and it's great. On Ebay they are way less just be aware the card can be very loud. You will need to set profiles on the ATI catalyst control center. I have one that is basic setup to just run normal stuff and clocks the cores of the card to the bare minimum.



When I game i put it to the default factory mhz. I never overclock as that might decrease the life of the card.



http://shop.ebay.com...14&_sop=1&_sc=1



If you have any questions let me know. Auctions are going for less than I paid for my 512MB model which is great. (Because the aucitons are for the 1GB version)



Newegg no longer carries the card.

[Monstruo696]

Thanks for that comparison website.



I'm gonna check if I can fit a 250 GTS in my case.



I've bought nVidias since I bought my first 5200 gt from them.

[Gorath Alpha]

Monstruo696 wrote...

Thanks for that comparison website.

I've bought nVidias since I bought my first 5200 gt from them.

There was no GT before the 6000 generation.  There were Vanilla FX 5200s, "SE" model  5200s (Excrement Edition), and "Ultra" 5200s.  But all three were pure, total, absolute CRAP. 

They were slower than the GF4 Ti-4000s, any of those, at doing Dx8, nearly as awful at it as the MX-440s.  They were worse than a dying snail at doing Dx9.  Where the GF3s and Gf4s, excldung the MX card they promoted as being a GF4, were decent video cards, just not in the same class as ATI's Radeon 9500s, the FXes were a disaster that cost nVIDIA a million dollars in losses. 

Instead of Dx9, nVIDIA chose an advanced shader system of their own making that had no internal path for SM2 shader code, so they were very bad in Dx9.  The GF4s didv't have any kind of SM2 shaders at all, and nVIDIA ended up by literally patching in part of a GF4, the SM 1.4 shader processing, into all of the FXes, so they were complex, hot-running, and expensive to produce.  Then ATI released the Radeon 9700.  All of the FXes really looked like so many turtles next to that one. 

They tried again, removing the "dust buster" 5800 from the line, and substituting the 5700 and 5900, but those couldn't match the 9500 in Dx9, nor the 9700, even in Dx8.  Their final try was a ridiculously expensive FX 5950 Ultra that came out after the Radeon 9800.  It could match the Dx8 speed of the 9700, but was still a slug in Dx9. ATI withdrew the 9500 shortly before the X000 generation, and replaced it with the slower, but cooler running (and thus quieter) Radeon 9600 -- and despite it comparing to the other Radeons as if it was misnamed, and should have been called a 9400, it was still better in Dx9's shader operations than any Geforce FX card. 

Thought you might enjoy a little embarrassing Green Team history. 

Gorath
-

Modifié par Gorath Alpha, 18 novembre 2009 - 03:45 .

[MrGOH]

Gorath Alpha wrote...

*interesting history lesson*

That was fascinating - I'm an ATI fan (generally because when it comes time for upgrading my rig, ATI just happens to have the best mid-range card for the $$$ rather than out of some misguided sense of corporate patriotism), but I remember working on friends' comps with those old nVidia cards and their loud, fans. I was never able to follow their various models, so I ended up recommending ATI's since I was more familiar with their product. My buddies still ended up buying those odd nVidia cards, though. Probably suckered into by all the games that had nVidia splash screens on startup.

Edit: Oh, and to teh OP - I love my Sapphire Radeon 4850 I got for just under $100. I defer to Gorath's expertise as to whether the 4670 is a better choice for you, but I think the 4850 is a more powerful card overall. I got the 512MB version.

Modifié par MrGOH, 18 novembre 2009 - 04:24 .

[Monstruo696]

Gorath Alpha wrote...

Monstruo696 wrote...

Thanks for that comparison website.

I've bought nVidias since I bought my first 5200 gt from them.

There was no GT before the 6000 generation.  There were Vanilla FX 5200s, "SE" model  5200s (Excrement Edition), and "Ultra" 5200s.  But all three were pure, total, absolute CRAP. 

They were slower than the GF4 Ti-4000s, any of those, at doing Dx8, nearly as awful at it as the MX-440s.  They were worse than a dying snail at doing Dx9.  Where the GF3s and Gf4s, excldung the MX card they promoted as being a GF4, were decent video cards, just not in the same class as ATI's Radeon 9500s, the FXes were a disaster that cost nVIDIA a million dollars in losses. 

Instead of Dx9, nVIDIA chose an advanced shader system of their own making that had no internal path for SM2 shader code, so they were very bad in Dx9.  The GF4s didv't have any kind of SM2 shaders at all, and nVIDIA ended up by literally patching in part of a GF4, the SM 1.4 shader processing, into all of the FXes, so they were complex, hot-running, and expensive to produce.  Then ATI released the Radeon 9700.  All of the FXes really looked like so many turtles next to that one. 

They tried again, removing the "dust buster" 5800 from the line, and substituting the 5700 and 5900, but those couldn't match the 9500 in Dx9, nor the 9700, even in Dx8.  Their final try was a ridiculously expensive FX 5950 Ultra that came out after the Radeon 9800.  It could match the Dx8 speed of the 9700, but was still a slug in Dx9. ATI withdrew the 9500 shortly before the X000 generation, and replaced it with the slower, but cooler running (and thus quieter) Radeon 9600 -- and despite it comparing to the other Radeons as if it was misnamed, and should have been called a 9400, it was still better in Dx9's shader operations than any Geforce FX card. 

Thought you might enjoy a little embarrassing Green Team history. 

Gorath
-

Right, 5200 FX.

Wat wuz I finkin'? <_<

[Tyrax Lightning]

The card from the TC seems comparable to what I was eyeballing in power, but it costs less, so i've switched my card choice to the TC card. If I manage to get my new puder parts & get the new puder up & running, then i'll try to remember to return to this thread & tell ya'all how it goes.

Edit: Update: This card choice got trumped too. See below for the new winner.

Modifié par Tyrax Lightning, 11 janvier 2010 - 06:59 .

[lv12medic]

The only major ATI issue I've seen lately is if you run CrossfireX playing Need for Speed: Shift. Framerate randomly nose dives everytime the game renders bystanders. Last time I get talked into a random game by friends. Though, with NVidia cards you also have PhysX support which is fun for most games that support it like Sacred 2 with its over the top ridiculous Kobold gibbing.

[Monstruo696]

I think I found the card I want to buy.



http://www.newegg.co...N82E16814127445



Don't think I'll get a better bang-for-buck from an nVidia.

[Tyrax Lightning]

Edit: Update: The prior card choice that was previously here also got trumped.

Here's my new puder build winning final choice of new Graphics Card:

The WINNER!!! SAPPHIRE 100258-1GHDMI Radeon HD 4850 1GB 256-bit GDDR3 PCI Express 2.0 x16 HDCP Ready CrossFireX Support Video Card

Modifié par Tyrax Lightning, 11 janvier 2010 - 07:05 .