Budget graphics cards

[time]

Okay, what does everyone favour in the bottom end of the graphics adaptor market?

I'm particularly interested in sub US$70, but under US$120 is also interesting.

So far, I've noted that:

o A Radeon 9600SE is roughly comparable to a Radeon 9200
o A Radeon 9200 is roughly comparable to an FX5200
o A Radeon 9600 is faster than an FX5600, but slower than an FX5700
o An FX5600XT is faster than an FX5200 but slower than an FX5600
o An FX5500 is comparable to an FX5600XT
o SE versions of either brand (or the subtle 64-bit FX variants) may have only a third of the memory bandwidth and tend to suck

To me, it seems like the graphics adaptor industry has largely stood still for the last twelve months. There are plenty of cut-down variants, but precious few uncastrated cards. Hardly anything worth getting seems to be in stock with the various suppliers I deal with.

Comments?

 

[Buck]

Time,

Presently, I arrange my cards as:

Corporate/Business/SOHO
Sapphire 9600 128MB - sub $120.00
Sapphire 9200 128MB - sub $80.00

Budget:
Sapphire 9200 64MB - sub $70.00

Miser:
Sapphire 7000 32MB (DDR) - sub $40.00
ATI Xpert 98 8MB - sub $30.00 (these seem to be more or less give-away items now)

As you mentioned, the SE variants suck wind and should be avoided.

 

[time]

Unfortunately, I can only get Sapphire 9600SE and 9200SE - when I can get Sapphire at all. And around here, that seems to be a trend; the original chips replaced with castrated ones at only a slight discount. :x

 

[Buck]

Bummer. My main disti seems to be the opposite, supplying more Sapphire models then not.

 

[Tea]

The Gforce 4000 is gradually giving way to the Gforce FX 5200 on my shelf. We are a Nvidia-only shop because Kristi and I both feel very uneasy about ATI's weirdo problems and we just don't trust them. With the Nvida cards, we just plug them in and they work. First time, every time. Plus, we can always use the same drivers for every system - that's a really significant time and trouble saver.

I'm not too fussed about brands - they all seem to work just fine - but mosty it's Leadtek.

 

[CougTek]

Look here.

 

[Mercutio]

My standby card is a 128MB Sapphire 9200. Unless someone tells me they play 3D games, or are really poor, that's what they get. At this point, I almost always go with a KM400-based-mainboard for the budget segment. Gigabyte's board is more than good enough and has a real AGP slot if someone wants something better down the road. At the lowest price point, I just can't justify $30 for a Radeon 7000, even though it DOES look a little better.

Buck, are you really putting 9600s in "business" machines? I try to avoid anything that needs a fan on it.

Incidently, I'm buying my first-in-over-three-years nVidia card tomorrow: I'm trading a MSI FX5200 VIVO for an ATI retail-box AIW 9700 Pro.

Anyway, clearly Tannin and Kristi have had too much of whatever the Koalas have been smoking, 'cause you could reverse the positions of ATI and nVidia in his last post and that'd describe my experience.

 

[Tea]

You got it, Merc. It's a mystery to me. But the long and the short of our experience is that Nvidia cards just work for us. Utterly fuss-free.

Where I can, I go with the fanless ones (for the obvious silence and reliability reasons). We load whatever drivers we lay our hand on first: typically some reasonably recent Dets, sometimes the drivers off the CD that came with the card. Kristi says that some cards don't like the Dets and some cards don't like the manufacturer-supplied drivers, but that it's easy to tell when it isn't happy and (worst case) all you have to do is uninstall-reinstall. I don't seem to meet even that minor problem more tan once in a blue moon - though I don't do nearly as much hands-on workshop stuff as Kristi does.

In contrast, Nvidia's on-board graphics drivers (for the Nforce II boards) are tricky things. They are prone to mis-configuring themselves, usually by - for some reason unknown to man or god - working fine on the first reboot but at some later time deciding to configure themselves for some absolutely absurd refresh frequencies that none of the new 17 inch monitors in the workshop can cope with.

Typically, they do this in the workshop, but two or three times they have waited till they were out in service - majoe pain in the arse.

The fix, it turns out, is very simple. When you install an Nforce II mainboard with integrated video, only install the motherboard drivers - don't let the install program touch the graphics subsection. Then, having got the mainboard side of things sorted out, load the Dets. The Dets work every time.

The long and the short of it, for graphics cards, stick with Nvidia. For motherboards, avoid anything that isn't VIA. (SiS might be OK, but why take the chance? Intel is usually safe but can be spotty. VIA just works. First time, every time.)

 

[Buck]

Buck, are you really putting 9600s in "business" machines? I try to avoid anything that needs a fan on it.

That would be for the HO side of SOHO Merc. They invariably end up using their machine for games too.

 

[time]

Okay, I can get real 9200 and 9600 in Gigabyte.

But now I've read Coug's really excellent link, I'm confused. BTW, good catch, Coug - I was sniffing around XBit for something like that but missed it completely.

It looks like the 9600SE might perform better than expected with new games, thereby extending its useful life.

Tea, I'm wary of ATI as well, but most people here now seem to swear by them.

 

[Buck]

Tea and Time, I've had success and failures with both. As we have done, the best is to find a few cards that work for you and your customers and stick with them.

 

[blakerwry]

I've had absurd problems with ATi drivers, sometimes requiring removal and/or editing of .inf files and the registry to fix (direct X 6 stopped working in detonators a few months back)


Nvidia drivers work great, their nview software is terrible...

On the up side, i purchased an FX5600 for $50 a few weeks ago. It saved me from messing with this whole debacle.

 

[time]

... i purchased an FX5600 for $50 a few weeks ago. It saved me from messing with this whole debacle.

 

[sechs]

I've had absurd problems with ATi drivers, sometimes requiring removal and/or editing of .inf files and the registry to fix (direct X 6 stopped working in detonators a few months back)


Nvidia drivers work great, their nview software is terrible....

I've had the exact opposite experience. Nvidia seems to have always had the worst drivers -- requiring hacking and finesing; while ATi's drivers have always "just worked" for me.

 

[The JoJo]

I'm an "nvidia only" man. Never had problems with them.
Don't talk about ATI when I'm near, it results in high blood pressure for me.

Nvidia drivers have worked for me. I'm talking default Nvidia stuff, not some vendor customized stuff. ATI on the other hand....

 

[ddrueding]

I used to be nVidia-only, until the 9600Pro showed up. Now I'm running nothing but 9200, 9600, 9800, and x800 cards. No issues, ever.

 

[Tea]

The bottom line, then gentlemen, seems to be keep on doing what works for you. For me and Tannin, that's Nvidia.

 

[Buck]

keep on doing what works for you

Ditto (although ATI is still better. :rofl: ) :bibber:
:jumpin:

 

[mubs]

Buck seems to take after Henry Ford!

 

[Tea]

Nope. He takes after me!

(But I take after Henry Ford. Any colour you like so long as it's beige.)

 

[time]

Okay, I picked up a Sapphire 9600SE 128MB (at US$67, it was cheaper than the Gigabyte, although it looks identical). Dropped it into an nForce 2 with Athlon XP3200 and Win2k that was running a GeForce FX5200 (and before that an MX440). I didn't bother uninstalling the Detonator drivers (although nVidia's poxy nWiz crap kept trying to autostart - I had previously disabled it in the registry).

After installing the latest Catalyst drivers from ATI and the inevitable reboot, all was fine. Sapphire included the Redline tweaking utility on its very own CD (!), but I found the resulting overclocks limited and not worth the effort.

I ran 3DMark2001SE several times with different settings - at default it scored 6600 with no problems. Overall, performance was 50-100% better than the 128-bit FX5200, particularly with the more advanced graphics. The 9600SE runs out of puff above 1024x768 and improves by at least 50% at 800x600 - just what you'd expect with half the memory bandwidth of a true 9600. Naturally, it's way out of its depth with 3DMark2003.

IMO, this is the first true budget gaming chip since the MX440 (not the horrible MX440SE). Unlike the FX5200 and Radeon 9200, it's not disgraced when compared with the ancient and cheap MX440, plus it really is possible to play many current games - albeit possibly at 800x600.

There's no doubt it will render the 9200 and 9200SE obsolete, thereby easing ATI's embarassment at fielding a DX8 card. The fact that both Gigabyte and Sapphire are using fanless (pin-fin) heatsinks gets a HUGE thumbs up in my book. This seemed quite adequate; the card certainly generates less heat than the FX5200.

Tea, I think you should reconsider. I think this fits the price point much better than the FX5200, particularly now that most FX5200 are the 64-bit RAM versions - yet still cost nearly as much.

 

[Santilli]

Matrox P550 and P650

http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProdu...factory=1291&Type=Refurbish&sortby=14&order=1

Looking at a 21 inch monitor on one right now. Bought it for under 70 bucks. AMAZING.

Just got done gaming on one of these.

http://computing.kelkoo.co.uk/b/a/ps_508827/111601.html

Quake III and Tiger woods, at 1280 X 960, and max settings never looked so good.

s

 

[Santilli]

http://www.micromart.co.uk/content/reviews/default.asp?Category=article&Type=&ID=1664

Armed with Dual-DVI output (two HD-15 adapters are included), dual independent hardware video overlays, and DVD-Video acceleration, the P650 is aimed primarily at the 2D digital artist and Computer-Aided Designer, though it is in the field of video editing that this card excels. The card is capable of reproducing remarkably high quality digital video simultaneously on two monitors, and can accomplish this feat without any degradation of quality. This may seem an extravagant luxury to the average user, but the ability to manipulate raw footage on one monitor whilst viewing the edited result on another is a boon to the video professional.

 

[time]

http://www.hexus.net/content/reviews/review.php?dXJsX3Jldmlld19JRD0yNzE=

... gaming isn't really acceptable, not with current (Feb 2002) titles at least ...

With a score of 1534 on 3DMark2001, I'd have to agree.

A cheap and humble Radeon 7000 also delivers good 2D quality - and would blow the G550 off the desktop.

 

[Santilli]

I guess you wanted gaming cards.

The G550 blows away any of the other cards with 2D clarity.

I won't sacrifice this kind of clarity, and color, for gaming results, again.

The P650 is a nice compromise for gaming and clarity, but it's out of your price range, by a little.

gs

 

[blakerwry]

santilli, why not just go DVI, then you card has nothing to do with clarity. Only your monitor.... which is the way it should be.

 

[e_dawg]

I have taken the 3D gaming vs. no 3D gaming approach to video card selection.

For my 3D gaming computer, I spent a fair bit on an ATI Radeon 9550 Pro. Beautiful card. Totally restored my faith in ATI after a frustrating stint with an ATI AIW 128 card. With either a high quality Sony or Samsung CRT or a Samsung 191T LCD via DVI, it delivers great image quality.

For my no 3D gaming computer, I spent a grand total of $20 USD on a Matrox G450 (OEM, new). Passive heatsink, VGA and DVI outputs. Stability and compatibility with Dual-head was a nightmare, but when kept in single desktop mode, it's been no muss, no fuss, very good image quality, and dirt cheap. I believe you can still get OEM G450's for a few more months. I would recommend them for business desktops.

 

[Santilli]

I'm with edawg...
s

 

[Onomatopoeic]

With a score of 1534 on 3DMark2001, I'd have to agree.

Believe it or not, the older G450 is a bit faster at 3D gaming than a G550. Then, the even-older G400 Max was faster than a G450 at 3D gaming. (This is what I've been told by many a folk.)

However, image quality at high spatial resolutions / refresh rates steady increased from G400 up through G550 even though 3D performance went sideways or a bit backwards.

The introduction of the P-series (i.e. -- GPU cores which are scaled down Parhelia cores) reversed all that, except image quality, which advanced yet some more at the highest end of the X-Y resolution and refresh rate.

 

[blakerwry]

My experience with a pIII and g400 was a 3dmark score of 911.... pretty sad. The card is barely capable of an older game like halflife. With a TNT 1 beating its pants in 3D.

 

[e_dawg]

Yeah, but ever since the earlier Millenium cards until the Parhelia, Matrox didn't even bother to compete in the 3D arena. As Gary said, the G400 Max was the pinnacle of Matrox' 3D performance until recently.

 

[Mercutio]

The cost of a Matrox card, unless you can find G400 system pulls or something (Axion Technologies is selling G450s for $35, if anyone cares BTW), is simply to much to bear for a typical PC. Yes, there's a readily identifiable quality difference between the Matrox cards and, say, the nvidia crap Tannin uses, but in the end, the extra $100 a P650 costs over and above a decent "budget" card like a Radeon 9200 would probably be a deal-breaker for most people.

 

[Buck]

Yes, price does make a difference. The 128MB Sapphire ATI 9600 is quite a bit less then a P650 with 64MB of memory. Interestingly, my disti has almost 300 G550 32MB Matrox cards instock, and it is not as if they are old inventory, about two weeks ago they had zero. I just wish they would sell them to me for less so that I could be competitive selling those cards. They would make nice upgrades for older systems if the price was right.

 

[Buck]

Come to think of it, the Sapphire ATI 9600XT is priced the same as the Matrox P650 for me.

 

[CityK]

and, say, the nvidia crap Tannin uses

There's just no squelching the Amer-Aussie Video card dispute is there.

 

[.Nut]

and, say, the nvidia crap Tannin uses

There's just no squelching the Amer-Aussie Video card dispute is there.

Unfortunately, Tannin may not have access to good pricing on certain items. So, that's that and there's nothing he can do about it. Local supply constraints exist everywhere.

One can probably buy... oh... er... Canon BubbleJet printers dirt cheap in Osaka, but not so in Tacoma. So, in the case of Tannin, maybe his best choice is an nVidiot card or maybe a Western Digi Paradise VGA. OK, I was just kidding about the Western Digi card.

 

[sechs]

This does make one wonder why ATi cards aren't cheaper in Canada....

 

[CougTek]

My experience with a pIII and g400 was a 3dmark score of 911.... pretty sad. The card is barely capable of an older game like halflife. With a TNT 1 beating its pants in 3D.

Now I doubt that very, VERY much. The G400 MAX was one of the fastest cards of its time. The main problem with it was the poor drivers that Matrox delivered at first. More optimized versions of the G400 MAX drivers were made more than a year after and then it clinched every other cards of its generation...except that it was already two generations behind.

Anyway, a TNT 1 doesn't beat a G400 MAX, sorry. A TNT 2 Ultra does, but not a TNT 1.

 

[blakerwry]

at no point did I say max... it is a g400 dual head.

 

[CougTek]

Ok, I confused the "was" with a "max" because of fast-reading. Nonetheless, a regular G400 is faster than a TNT 1. See these old benchmarks at anandtech for proof. It matches a TNT2 (non-Ultra), so it certainly kicks the ass of a first-gen TNT.

Something else that I forgot was the absence of an OpenGL driver back in the days when the G400 was introduced. It was another show stopper for Matrox former flagship product.