Do you have a question? Post it now! No Registration Necessary. Now with pictures!
- Posted on
- video cards
April 20, 2005, 4:18 am
rate this thread
I am confused. I am getting information from PC shops that these below cards
dont play games well. They are only entry level cards I am told and if you
want to play games a lot you shouldnt use these. (buy much more expensive
I only want to play games sometimes (not every day and not hours on end)
I want to be able to run latest directX at least.
The games I want to run from shops dont require 128mb cards only 8-64cards
I am looking at getting
Gigabyte Radeon 9250 128Mb / 9200SE 128Mb
GIGABYTE ATI Radeon 9550 128Mb
GIGABYTE NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200 128Mb
PowerColor 9250 128Mb
q)Are these cards good enough for that
q) what dont they do compared to more expensive cards.
q) whats does 64bit and 128 bit mean with cards
Re: video cards
Yes that's right.
it doesn't matter does it?
I mean, it's not how often you play, it's the performance
you need WHEN playing... even if you only play one single
I'm confused though, why you feel you need latest directX?
It won't help to have DX9 support if the card is too slow to
run anything in DX9 mode. Just the opposite, if you have a
slow DX9 card you may end up disabling any/every advanced
feature possible to get higher framerate. Of course it also
depends largely on the resolution, whether you "need" FSAA
and ansio filtering, and the particular game.
Then I doubt you need DX9 support.
I mean, you haven't mentioned the issues that effect
performance, nor the system the card will be in... for
example a Celeron 900 based system isn't going to gain much
with a $500 card over a $80 card.
Allow fast enough framerates with the more demanding games
of the past couple years... let alone near-future games.
The cards you mentioned aren't even very good at DX8 games.
IMO, if one is to game at all they should at least buy a
card that can play "today's" games... but at lowest
price-tiers that doesn't necessarily mean only that it be a
DX9 card. Otherwise in 6-12 months you may be wishing you'd
spent a little more but will have to start over and spend a
lot more with the card you purchased previously having very
I suggest a Radeon 9600 Pro. It's a large step above any of
those and with enough bargain hunting should be about $85
delivered (see Pricewatch.com or Froggle search for "Radeon
9600 Pro"). Or there are ~ $71 delivered "pulls" here,
Re: video cards
That will be a bit of a limitation, especially if it's PC133
memory instead of DDR, but things could be worse, it should
be OK for the "typical" game that only needs 64MB or less
video memory as a very rough estimate.
I didn't mean to imply that. I call a card "DX8" based upon
that being highest DX version it supports. A DX9 card does
DX8 too, but a DX8 (max) card of course can't do DX9.
The point I meant to make was that for the gaming you aren't
really gaining anything by simply choosing a DX9 card, if it
isn't fast enough to support playable framerates in your
target DX9 games, which was what I had assumed you needed
specifically before I read your next statement below.
Now I see the greater need for DX9, but the previous
suggestion (Radeon 9600 Pro) is a DX9 card. Main point was
that none of the cards you listed are very good for modern
DX9 games. As always you can consider your target apps and
seek benchmarks online to determine the needed performance.
I suggest a card that has an average framerate higher than
50 FPS at a bare minimum because that IS only an average, on
more demanding portions of a game the lower-end of that FPS
range will be lower, hopefully not TOO low. IMO if it drops
below 30FPS in such situations you're not going to be happy.
Someone already having a card and facing that situation
would of course turn down the eyecandy and resolution, maybe
seeking game tweaks if possible.
Re: video cards
It really depends on the person. Decent game play can really mean very
different things to different people but theres also a general
standard that most people would agree to obviously. But I know people
who claim to be OK with DOOM 3 on ancient cards which I would think
would be torture.
For me now I HAVE to have a 6800 at least. Even my 9800 seemed to bog
down a bit at the res and effects on I tried and Im not a fanatic
gamer. However you might be pretty satisfied with the 9550. Ive heard
that was a barely usable gamer card if you set the res low enough
around 800x600 or so.
I still think spending more than $300 is INSANE but Im more open now
to $200-280 that level. My prior level was $200 max . However Im
really senstive to the cheapest cheapest gamer card level you can get
and always keep my eye out because I know a lot of poor neighbors
with kids who are game crazy and they dont want to really spend
ANYTHING on a card. There have been in the US some $30 5200 and 9200
deals recently. Im looking for a 9550 or 5700 for $30 ideally for them
but that hasnt happened yet.
Re: video cards
Usually memory bus width.
64 bit being used on only the slowest & cheapest (at least
meant to be, low-end card prices can vary a lot) while the
median budget gaming cards should be 128 bit. Any "good"
gaming card will be 256 bit but then there are the other
issues too like GPU and memory speed, pipelines, with any of
these impacting performance too (more being better so long
as the other remaining factors remain same or higher).