Author Topic: Vid Card advice (Read 563 times)

batdog · « **on:** July 24, 2001, 06:56:00 AM »

Looking for a good mid line vid card. I currently use a tnt and get around 30-40fps.
I was wondering if a geforce 2 would be an improvement and which one to get... and which to avoid.

xBAT

Fishu · « **Reply #1 on:** July 24, 2001, 08:41:00 AM »

for what CPU?

batdog · « **Reply #2 on:** July 24, 2001, 12:23:00 PM »

TB 1.2GH ,on a A7A Asus MB 266

xBAT

Eagler · « **Reply #3 on:** July 24, 2001, 01:07:00 PM »

i have a geforce2 leadtek 64mb ultra running on a iwill kk266mb with a TB 1.33.
Get a rock solid 62 fps (video settings locked at 60 fps)just about everywhere in AH running 1280 x whatever it is, 32 bit. Fast video card though I think my win98 desktop and other apps (other than AH) looked sharper with the voodoo 5500.

JimBear · « **Reply #4 on:** July 24, 2001, 02:19:00 PM »

Eagler, could you do me a favor and check your FPS under 1600x1200 32bit? I currently have a GeForce DDR that stays around 38fps or so, but drops to low teens near bases that are smoking. I have been debating an upgrade but the durn GeF3 cards just wont come down, altho the GeF2 are at a decent price.

JimBear

Animal · « **Reply #5 on:** July 24, 2001, 05:59:00 PM »

Batdog - Go for a Geforce2 Pro

or if you can afford it, a Geforce 3.

Some people here swear by the Radeon 64, so it could also be a good choice, never tried it tho..

bloom25 · « **Reply #6 on:** July 24, 2001, 06:44:00 PM »

On that CPU a GF2 would probably give you 20 - 30 more fps. That tnt card is very slow by today's standards.

I'd probably recommend getting a Gf2 GTS or GF2 PRO right now. They are the best deal.

Some people like the radeon cards, but I've never had good luck with ATI drivers. Windows 2000 performance is also very very bad compared to win98 with a radeon. With a GF2 it is about the same and in some cases actually faster.

Eagler · « **Reply #7 on:** July 24, 2001, 09:10:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by JimBear:
Eagler, could you do me a favor and check your FPS under 1600x1200 32bit? I currently have a GeForce DDR that stays around 38fps or so, but drops to low teens near bases that are smoking. I have been debating an upgrade but the durn GeF3 cards just wont come down, altho the GeF2 are at a decent price.

JimBear

JimBear
Running at that res I got:
53 in tower with clipboard
54 A31 SW runway
62 solid in flight (60 fps lock on)
lowest i got was 41 for a sec over smoky field.

these are with anti alias off.

Fishu · « **Reply #8 on:** July 25, 2001, 03:56:00 AM »

If you feel rich, you could as well buy GeForce 3 and brag around with it

If not, you could consider fast GF2 cards (not MX or any regular GTS's) and Radeon 64mb's.
Of course you can wait for ATI's R200, so far referred to Radeon II.

I'll be waiting with interest to see what will Radeon II be like.

Bloom,

W2K users are getting to like the drivers though..
but W2K is not really meant for playing anyway, so you can't directly compare gaming performance between win98 as driver fault.

Im happy with new 7153 beta sets for 98, fixed little minor flashing in operation flashpoint.
Now it seems perfect.

[ 07-25-2001: Message edited by: Fishu ]

bigUC · « **Reply #9 on:** July 25, 2001, 04:53:00 AM »

To add to the confusion I run a Prophet 4500 (Kyro II). They are cheap (should be around $100) but due to issues with the current version of AH i cannot recommend it. It slows down considerably during sunset/dawn but at all other times it shows stunning performance for a budget card. I run 4x faasa at 1024x798 in 32 bit color and get between 35-45 fps. It gives u 40-50 fps in 1280x1024x32, but 10x7 and faasa just looks better. Image quality very good, comparable to my old g400 max (1600x1200 desktop at 85 Hz). If the issue with sunset/dawn gets fixed I would absolutely recommend it (have no problems with other games), but until then: Get something else...

batdog · « **Reply #10 on:** July 26, 2001, 06:34:00 AM »

Thanks for info, gonna check in on GeForce Pro at www.pricewatch.com

xBAT