Best GPU for $100

Clocker

Clocker

0
Joined
Jan 14, 2002
Messages
3,554
Location
USA
What's your recommendation for a video card at ~$100? Gaming performance is a higher priority than features or 2D image quality.

C
 
There's no good reason to buy a 256MB card. Buy the (non-SE) 128MB version for under $100 and be happy. For that matter, the 9550 is even a little cheaper yet - around $80 for the decent-performing 128bit version - and is probably good enough for anyone in the sub-$100 range.
 
The 9550/9600SE are out classed by the older 8500/9100 series. For example, the 9550 has a core clock speed of 250MHz and a memory bus speed of 400MHz. Whereas the 9600 Pro has a core clock speed of 400MHz and the memory is communicated with at 600MHz. Other than that, the Pixel Pipeline, Texture Pipeline, and Vertex Pipeline are the same. All other things being equal, I would prefer the higher speed card for gaming (the 9600 Pro also comes in a 128 MB version).

One thing to keep in mind, if you're going to be playing Open GL games, like Doom 3, then nVidia would be your choice. They have done a better job with this feature than ATI has with their most recent cards.
 
You're right about the name Rosewill. I'd edit it but that is not allowed. The link still points to the correct product.

The card is not the SE or the pro varieties of the 9600 but rather in-between (the original 9600). I'm also not going to say this is the best choice if you are interested in Doom3/HL2 but then the proper cards for those games cost much more than $100. I will argue that for less than $100 you are not likely to get better than this card and certainly $65 (shipped) is even better.
 
P5-133XL said:
I will argue that for less than $100 you are not likely to get better than this card and certainly $65 (shipped) is even better.
Click to expand...

A non-SE card for only $65.00 -- I wouldn't argue the point either.
 
~$105 is about what I have to spend and I want to get the most card I can for that amount. Fanless is definitely preferred. No nVidia or ATI preference. That $65 card is nice but can I get one that performs better and is faness for $105? What about those 5700LE cards?
THanks,
C
 
You did specify non-SE, but the 9600SE is in the same slow boat as the 9550.

Thanks for including that link from Time, I was trying to find that but apparently I forgot to place it in my bookmarks.
 
If you look at those benchmarks, some of the 9550-series cards actually perform better than 9800SEs in some tests.
 
Mercutio said:
If you look at those benchmarks, some of the 9550-series cards actually perform better than 9800SEs in some tests.
Click to expand...

That's the key, is it not. Just look at the FX5700 series, the plain FX5700 performs 30% better than the FX5700LE in Final Fantasy. The 9600Pro performs 65% better than the 9600SE with the same amount of RAM in the Final Fantasy benchmark, whereas the 9600XT from GeXcube (still the same amount of RAM0 performs 83% better than the SE flavor. It is very important to specify the appropriate model, and if you will, the model extension (e.g. SE, XT, Pro).
 
For $100 you could buy P5's Rosewell card AND one of those Zalman heatpipe GPU coolers. Not a bad plan, actually, since the cheapest non-LE 5700 I can find on pricewatch is $95.
Click to expand...

I don't mean to be difficult, but, why would I want to do that? I don't need an extra cooler. I just want the fastest card I can get for $100-$105. If you guys help me get it down to choosing between an nVIdia or ATI card, that would be supreme. I'm thinking it will probably be an ATI card as it seems there are more fanless versions of those cards.

Again, thanks to you all for helping me with this decision. The card is not for me but a family member who's told me how much they will spend.

C
 
Thanks for clairifying.

Anyway, I'm thinking about going with THIS CARD. I was considering the 256MB version because it was just a little more $ but I read that they are coming with slower clocked memory so I figured I'd stick with the 128MB card with 400Mhz memory. I would have thrown in a few extra bucks for a Pro or an XT but they all seem to be actively cooled with is bad IMO. Especially given the environment this card will be operating in.

Final analysis?

C
 
Clocker said:
Thanks for clairifying.

Anyway, I'm thinking about going with THIS CARD. I was considering the 256MB version because it was just a little more $ but I read that they are coming with slower clocked memory so I figured I'd stick with the 128MB card with 400Mhz memory. I would have thrown in a few extra bucks for a Pro or an XT but they all seem to be actively cooled with is bad IMO. Especially given the environment this card will be operating in.

Final analysis?

C
Click to expand...

I have several of that exact card in the field. I've been very happy with them. They run cooler than any "3d" graphics card i've seen in a long time.
 
Buck, Merc, P5, dd-

Thanks a lot for helping me think this purchase decision through. This GPU market seems to change so much it's hard for someone like me to keep track of. it It's great to have experts like you around to provide sound advice.

Too bad I'm not in the market for a pure value card; that Roswell unit looks very hard to beat when considering bang/buck.

Clocker
 
They say not to bother with 256MB cards. My mate is running doom3 on a 3.2 prescott with 1GB PC3200 and a ATI 9600XT 128MB. It chunks up every now and then when walking into a new room. You'd think thats because it's doing a lot more texture loading. Wouldn't more vram make this a less? On ultra quality mode, doom3 recommends 512 MB. A bit ahead of it's time I say.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top