Need graphic card recommendation

[Zeralenn]

Well, I'm happy ... I got my computer home today with the new GeForce FX 5600 Ultra card and I ran my gnome Arlie through PoK with particle effects on high, ran around in someone's bard song in a crowd, with no visible lag. After dealing with the jerky performance of the Radeon card, it was a thing of beauty.

At this point, top performace isn't really my issue ... if it's a little slower than the ti cards, oh well. All I know is that I used to have terrible lag and now I have no lag. To me, it is a thing of beauty.

Thanks to all for their recommendations.

...Zera

[Sisca]

The FX 5200 Ultra and 5600 Ultra should be avoided. They are both slower than the GeForce 4 ti series cards, the 5200 is only about 50% faster than the GeForce 4 MX-440. The 5600 is comparable to the GeForce 4 ti-4200 (The cheapest of the 4ti cards).

It really depends on your idea of faster. I've seen the benchmark tests on the web and in magazines showing those numbers but my experience comparing performance in the games I play (EQ, Planetside and lately the beta of Horizons) is just the opposite. My FX 5600 performs much better in those games than my old ti4800 card. This is perceived performance but with the old card I only had luclin models on for my caster races so they could use their horse, with the new card I have all models and particle effects on and I still don't notice as much framerate loss.

Personally, I bought the 5600 since it had DX 9 support which I knew I was going to want by the end of the year and I didn't want to have to do another upgrade .

[Raskii]

Originally posted by GraemeFaelban
The FX 5200 Ultra and 5600 Ultra should be avoided. They are both slower than the GeForce 4 ti series cards, the 5200 is only about 50% faster than the GeForce 4 MX-440. The 5600 is comparable to the GeForce 4 ti-4200 (The cheapest of the 4ti cards). . . .

While I agree that the FX 5200 should definately be avoided (it's basically the MX version of the other FX series cards), I think that the 5600 does deserve some consideration. The primary difference between the GeForce 4 and the GeForce FX cards is not in their speed (although the FX cards are generally faster), but in their support. The FX cards all have DirectX 9 support whereas the GeForce 4s only support through 8.1.

However, if you're looking for top-of-the-line, I'd definately go for the FX 5900. Aside from being on par with (and in some cases faster than) the Radeon 9800 Pro, it will have MUCH better driver support because nVidia's Unified Driver Architecture allows them to support the full range of cards with just a single set of drivers.

Also, I'd like to note that you should NOT buy the Radeon 9800 w/ 256MB of RAM! Aparently ATI just slapped the 256MB version together to get the first card with that much RAM out. What they did is to split the bus in half effectively doubling the overhead. That coupled with a few other small changes almost completely negates the benefit of having twice the memory. The net result is a card that is almost $100 more and performs virtually identically to the 128MB version!

EDIT: I need spell check

[Zeralenn]

Well, the new graphics card has been working well, but the graphics were still a little choppier than the graphics on my housemate's machine. We have the same make and model, but she has a slower graphics card, so I couldn't figure out why hers was so much smoother than mine. It was much better than with the old Radeon card, but still not as good as hers.

Then I figure it out. She has 1GB of RAM. I only had 512, which is the minimum recommended just for running Luclin.

I bought a second 512 chip today, snapped it in, and I now have EQ smooth sailing bliss.

Now, only if I can get Lord Begurgle to pop for my lil gnome...

...Zera

[Kentarre]

This is a great thread - thank you all

I just have a few questions... Basically I like to purchase a new graphics card every few years - for a reasonable price (ie, not top of the line) My last puchase was a Diamond Viper 550 with 16MB video ram. It served me very well for quite a few years. When Luclin obsoleted it and a friend gave me a hand me down 32MB GeForce card (no idea what model) he wasnt using, which was a signifigant improvement... but it's time for an upgrade.

So, from this thread and other misc reading, I seem to be leaning towards the GeForce FX 5600 - but I'm stymied by the array of choices out there. First off, pricewatch wants me to choose between the Ultra 128MB and the 256MB versions. Is the extra memory or the Ultra model better? And then once I've chosen one, I'm presented with an array of manufacturers (at least i think thats what they are) to choose from. They all seem to present a slightly different set of features and I am very confused to say the least.

My main goal with this new video card is to play EQ (my main computer is a mac now, the PC is only around to support my gaming habit ) I want the card to preform well (I want to hunt in JP!!) and last as long as possible... and obviously, cheaper is better. So can anyone help clarify what kind of GeForce FX 5600 card I might want? Best Buy has the Asylum GeForce FX 5600 Ultra for $179 after rebate, and instant gratification is nice Or would one of the $135 cheap-on-pricewatch specials do just as well?

Thanks for all your help

[Raskii]

GeForce FX 5600

OK, here's what I've seen...

There are 2 differences between the 5600 and 5600 Ultra.
1) The 5600 Ultra has twice the RAM (256MB vs. 128MB)
2) The 5600 Ultra runs faster (400MHz vs. 325MHz)

From what I've seen in benchmarks, this translates to about a 20% difference in performance with the GeForce FX 5600 Ultra pushing about 100 million vertices per second where the vanilla GeForce FX 5600 can only push about 81 million.

Personally, I have an Asylum Geforce FX 5600 Ultra from BFG Technologies and I have to REALLY work to slow EQ. Even when in PoK around Casters with a screen resolution of 1200x1600. And I'm running WinME with only 512MB RAM.

The choice is yours, but I would go with the Ultra.

[Kentarre]

Actually, from the specs on the BFG website...

FX 5600 Ultra has: 128MB RAM & 400MHz core clock
FX 5600 has: 256MB RAM & 325MHz core clock

so which is better (in terms of which will make my EQ game play nicer, even in PoK and Jaggedpine) the extra ram or the faster clock?

The price difference is $10 so at this point that hardly matters...

Thanks again

[Llwyd]

GeForce FX opinion

I just put a 5600 Ultra in my EQ machine and am very happy with it (it replaced a Geforce3 ti200). This is an AMD 1900+ with 1gig of ram.

I chose to go with the extra clock speed because my reading indicated that the extra memory wasn't all that helpful.

[Raskii]

Originally posted by Kentarre
Actually, from the specs on the BFG website...

FX 5600 Ultra has: 128MB RAM & 400MHz core clock
FX 5600 has: 256MB RAM & 325MHz core clock

so which is better (in terms of which will make my EQ game play nicer, even in PoK and Jaggedpine) the extra ram or the faster clock?

The price difference is $10 so at this point that hardly matters...

Thanks again

That's odd because I'm pretty dang sure I have an Ultra (at least that's what AlienWare said I was getting) and I have 256MB RAM...

Oh well.