Video card comparison

[Allochthonous]

Yes, I know they are old cards. Yes, I know they are crap compared to today's standards.

But, for a casual gamer, what is the better deal: 

1. A used PNY 128 MB GeForce FX 5600 Ulltra for $40 or less
2. A used Gainward 128 MB GeForce FX5700 Ultra for $50 or less
3. A new BFG 256 MB 6200 OC for $80. (really, my max budget)

Or, better yet, what would be a good price for #1 or #2?


PK

[Calum]

What games do you play?
They may not be the best choices for your budget, which is $80 right?
And I guess you're going for an AGP card as well?
Out of those, I'd say the 5700 is the best, it's the most powerful but the 6200 supports newer effects.  However, it's not powerful enough to really apply them well.

[Jess607]

Anyone of those graphics cards isn't worth buying at all.

But I think you can find a 6600 GT for around 60$.

If not, then a 7600 GS for around 110$ is perfect.

[Calum]

$80. (really, my max budget)

$110?  Perfect?
Right.
And can you post a link to this 6600GT for $60?

Anyone of those graphics cards isn't worth buying at all.

Care to support that statement?

[Jess607]

$80. (really, my max budget)

$110?  Perfect?
Right.
And can you post a link to this 6600GT for $60?

Anyone of those graphics cards isn't worth buying at all.

Care to support that statement?

Certainly.
None of those graphics cards are worth the money that they cost. They are worth less than 10$, but since the stores cannot sell a card for under 50$, they sell them for 4 to 5 times what they are worth.
On top of that, none of those cards will give u enough performance to run ANY game. You would be better off with an onboard chip.

Now about the 6600 GT. Did I say 60$? I meant 30.
http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/searchtools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=2884782&Sku=B52-7866&SRCCODE=PRICEGRABBER&CMP=OTC-PRICEGRABBER

And yes, the 7600 GS for 110$ (AGP) is a good deal, if not great. You could spend a little more and get a lot better performance, but I dont think this guy is looking to spend much money.

[Calum]

I wasn't aware that any of those cards other than the 6200 were released as a PCI-E version, so I assumed that the OP was asking for an AGP card.  Oh, and by the way - they weren't.
In that case, the PCI-E 6600GT you linked to would not be much use, right?

On top of that, none of those cards will give u enough performance to run ANY game. You would be better off with an onboard chip.

A quick Google search would reveal that statement to be false.
Comparing the FX5700 Ultra to the GeForce 6100, an average onboard chip, reveals the onboard chip to be far behind, which is obvious.
The 5700 will run games, not modern games with all the details, but perhaps older games or fairly recent ones with lower detail settings.

And yes, the 7600 GS for 110$ (AGP) is a good deal, if not great

I didn't say it was a bad deal.
I said that the OP had a budget of $80, not $110, so it is not "perfect".

[Jess607]

On top of that, none of those cards will give u enough performance to run ANY game. You would be better off with an onboard chip.

A quick Google search would reveal that statement to be false.
Comparing the FX5700 Ultra to the GeForce 6100, an average onboard chip, reveals the onboard chip to be far behind, which is obvious.
The 5700 will run games, not modern games with all the details, but perhaps older games or fairly recent ones with lower detail settings.

Most people do not have 6100 chip-based onboard GPUs, but Intel GMA. The more recent versions are MORE powerful than the FX 5700, and they support DX9.0, wich the FX series seriously lacks good support for. I even have a laptop with an onboard GMA wich is just as powerful as my FX 5700, wich is only somewhat more powerful than the FX 5200.
So no, my statement is not false.. obviously.
And also, an FX 5700 will NOT run ANY modern game. The last game I found I could run on it was Far Cry and not above medium.

And yes, the 7600 GS for 110$ (AGP) is a good deal, if not great

I didn't say it was a bad deal.
I said that the OP had a budget of $80, not $110, so it is not "perfect".

Thats just stupid.. but I seem to find ppl say it often these days.
If you really think that the extra 30$ to go from a 6200 to a 7600 GS is not money well spent, then u have me there.

[Calum]

If you really think that the extra 30$ to go from a 6200 to a 7600 GS is not money well spent, then u have me there.

Again . . . I did not say that.
I said that the budget was $80, so it is the OP's call whether they stretch their budget or not - it may not be an option.
FX5700 Ultra
Intel GMA 950
Above are benchmarks of Doom 3 at High Quality on the FX 5700 Ultra and the Intel GMA 950, as you insist on the Intel GMA as a comparison.
To my eyes, the FX5700 is the clear winner.
Yes, Doom 3 is an older game.
But it uses advanced effects and is a demanding workout, which is why it is still used as a benchmark today.

I even have a laptop with an onboard GMA wich is just as powerful as my FX 5700, wich is only somewhat more powerful than the FX 5200.

Which onboard GMA?
And the FX5700 is not the same as the Ultra version.

[Jess607]

If you really think that the extra 30$ to go from a 6200 to a 7600 GS is not money well spent, then u have me there.

Again . . . I did not say that.
I said that the budget was $80, so it is the OP's call whether they stretch their budget or not - it may not be an option.
FX5700 Ultra
Intel GMA 950
Above are benchmarks of Doom 3 at High Quality on the FX 5700 Ultra and the Intel GMA 950, as you insist on the Intel GMA as a comparison.
To my eyes, the FX5700 is the clear winner.
Yes, Doom 3 is an older game.
But it uses advanced effects and is a demanding workout, which is why it is still used as a benchmark today.

I even have a laptop with an onboard GMA wich is just as powerful as my FX 5700, wich is only somewhat more powerful than the FX 5200.

Which onboard GMA?
And the FX5700 is not the same as the Ultra version.

If his budget is 80$, he can stretch it to 110$. I honestly believe that he should.

And ironically, I do have the Intel GMA 950 graphics chip. But I will tell you that my performance in Doom 3 is much higher than what that review implies. At 800x600 HQ its completely playable.
and if you look at the specs, the FX 5700 Ultra and the GMA 950 are almost identical.
You have to realize that the performance of the GMA 950, being an integrated chip, has to do with the rest of the components aswell, and in my Laptop its not being bottlenecked by anything.

But the comparison of the FX 5700 Ultra GDDR3 is null because the FX 5700 Ultra that the OP was talking about was the 128MB DDR2 version and 256MB of GDDR3 raises the performance substantially. Since you cannot compare the GMA 950 and the 5700 Ultra on the same system you're not going to know for sure.

All in all, lets just agree that he should buy the 7600 GS, a Zalman VF900 and overclock to an X800 Pro.

[Calum]

If his budget is 80$, he can stretch it to 110$. I honestly believe that he should.

You've obviously never worked with a strict budget.
I know the feeling of being restricted with money, I don't have a lot of it so I am careful.
I work out a budget for purchases, and if I go over it at all then it affects something else down the line - simple math shows that $80 will not turn into $110 overnight.

And ironically, I do have the Intel GMA 950 graphics chip. But I will tell you that my performance in Doom 3 is much higher than what that review implies. At 800x600 HQ its completely playable.

What actual performance are you getting?
I'd be interested to know.

and if you look at the specs, the FX 5700 Ultra and the GMA 950 are almost identical.

Are they?
I don't see dedicated VRAM on the GMA.

You have to realize that the performance of the GMA 950, being an integrated chip, has to do with the rest of the components aswell, and in my Laptop its not being bottlenecked by anything.

The performance of any component is restricted by the slowest one.
If you have 128Mb of RAM, two 8800GTX cards will not help you run Doom 3.

But the comparison of the FX 5700 Ultra GDDR3 is null because the FX 5700 Ultra that the OP was talking about was the 128MB DDR2 version and 256MB of GDDR3 raises the performance substantially. Since you cannot compare the GMA 950 and the 5700 Ultra on the same system you're not going to know for sure.

But you can get a good idea of the performance.
I see what you're saying about the 256Mb DDR3 vs 128Mb DDR2, but I'm sure it isn't that much  of a performance hit, from 57.7 to 14fps.

All in all, lets just agree that he should buy the 7600 GS, a Zalman VF900 and overclock to an X800 Pro.

Thus raising the price even more.
Let's just wait for the OP to psot back and say something, eh?
Something like "I have $80, that's it" or "I can stretch it a bit"?
And there is no way you can overclock a 7600GS to an X800 Pro - they're not even made by the same manufacturer.

[Jess607]

If his budget is 80$, he can stretch it to 110$. I honestly believe that he should.

You've obviously never worked with a strict budget.
I know the feeling of being restricted with money, I don't have a lot of it so I am careful.
I work out a budget for purchases, and if I go over it at all then it affects something else down the line - simple math shows that $80 will not turn into $110 overnight.

You're not one to be lecturing me about a budget. In my country I'm lucky if a certain piece of hardware costs twice as much. And besides, this guy needs to know that 80$ is just not enough - or 160$ is not enough where I live, and that an extra 10% in price can get u much more in performance in the low-to-mid end.

And ironically, I do have the Intel GMA 950 graphics chip. But I will tell you that my performance in Doom 3 is much higher than what that review implies. At 800x600 HQ its completely playable.

What actual performance are you getting?
I'd be interested to know.

Me too. It's not really my laptop that I was talking about - it's my relative's. Next time I visit, I'd love to see what it would really get in Doom 3.

and if you look at the specs, the FX 5700 Ultra and the GMA 950 are almost identical.

Are they?
I don't see dedicated VRAM on the GMA.

Exactly, thats the only difference. But in a laptop with high-performance DDR2, the difference should not be too big between it and DDR. So maybe the 5700 Ultra has the edge with the RAM - which is ironically the last thing graphics cards usually win on.

You have to realize that the performance of the GMA 950, being an integrated chip, has to do with the rest of the components aswell, and in my Laptop its not being bottlenecked by anything.

The performance of any component is restricted by the slowest one.
If you have 128Mb of RAM, two 8800GTX cards will not help you run Doom 3.

Yes, of course. But a laptop with DDR2 isnt exactly slow.

But the comparison of the FX 5700 Ultra GDDR3 is null because the FX 5700 Ultra that the OP was talking about was the 128MB DDR2 version and 256MB of GDDR3 raises the performance substantially. Since you cannot compare the GMA 950 and the 5700 Ultra on the same system you're not going to know for sure.

But you can get a good idea of the performance.
I see what you're saying about the 256Mb DDR3 vs 128Mb DDR2, but I'm sure it isn't that much  of a performance hit, from 57.7 to 14fps.

Well, you're wrong. In older cards, the difference between DDR2 and GDDR3 is huge. It could mean the difference between 10Gb and 15Gb or more. Why do u think the 7600 GT is so popular? The only difference between it and the 7600 GS is GDDR3.

And there is no way you can overclock a 7600GS to an X800 Pro - they're not even made by the same manufacturer.

Oh man, I think I tor a stitch on that one!

[Penguin]

Here is a bit of first hand expierence for you; i used a GeForce 5200 FX 128MB, a 2.0 GHz P4 PSU, and 512RAM DDR to play BF2 for the past year.  i have had the system since 2001, forget when i put the card in, but it worked fine for me.  the decision is yours, just make sure it works with your motherboard and make sure you have the right PSU to suport it.

[Jess607]

Here is a bit of first hand expierence for you; i used a GeForce 5200 FX 128MB, a 2.0 GHz P4 PSU, and 512RAM DDR to play BF2 for the past year.  i have had the system since 2001, forget when i put the card in, but it worked fine for me.  the decision is yours, just make sure it works with your motherboard and make sure you have the right PSU to suport it.

They didnt have 2.0Ghz Pentium 4s in 2001.

[Chilly]

Here is a bit of first hand expierence for you; i used a GeForce 5200 FX 128MB, a 2.0 GHz P4 PSU, and 512RAM DDR to play BF2 for the past year.  i have had the system since 2001, forget when i put the card in, but it worked fine for me.  the decision is yours, just make sure it works with your motherboard and make sure you have the right PSU to suport it.

They didnt have 2.0Ghz Pentium 4s in 2001.

You sure? They were released in 2000, by the end of 2000 the speeds were 1.4-1.5GHz then months later 2.0GHz+ were released in 2001.

And to Allochthonous, the FX 5700 performs better in my opinion, because I have the 5500 on my desktop and it can play BF2 on lowest settings while the 6200 and it's TurboCache only takes your computer RAM, which in my opinion again, is in between 5500 and 5700.

[Jess607]

Here is a bit of first hand expierence for you; i used a GeForce 5200 FX 128MB, a 2.0 GHz P4 PSU, and 512RAM DDR to play BF2 for the past year.  i have had the system since 2001, forget when i put the card in, but it worked fine for me.  the decision is yours, just make sure it works with your motherboard and make sure you have the right PSU to suport it.

They didnt have 2.0Ghz Pentium 4s in 2001.

Wow, you're right. I bought my Pentium 3 667Mhz CPU in early 2001.. Pentium 4 must have been horribly expensive.