Video card advice

It is a waste of time to try to put a cadilac of a video card on an 800 MHz
Processor. Such a motherboard is probably not a 8x AGP. If you do not have
a 8X AGP port then dont get an 8X video card.

You need a processor at least twice as fast.

A Sapphire Radeon 9000 is 3 times as fast as a GTS video card. It might be
a good replacement. I run one on an ASUS A7N8X motherboard with an XP2400+
and it runs great.
"grendel" wrote in message
...
I need to replace my GF2 GTS cause I'm pretty sure it has a heat problem
and
plus I'd like to upgrade for better 3D performance in games. I play the
following games. Half-Life and GTA3. GTA3 seems to be very demanding.
Although I do have only an 800 MHZ Athlon and 256 meg of RAM I assume the
slowdown I get in GTA3 is because of a lack of video card performance.
Anyway I'm debating the need for a DX9 video card. If there is not real
need
for a Directx9 video card for another year or 2 then I might as well
upgrade
to a GF4 ti 200. I'm still a little worried about ATI's drivers and the
stuttering problems I have heard about. I could get an ATI 9700 non pro
for
$200 or a nice ti200 for $100.

On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 21:46:22 -0500, "Tiny Tim"
wrote:

It is a waste of time to try to put a cadilac of a video card on an 800 MHz
Processor. Such a motherboard is probably not a 8x AGP. If you do not have
a 8X AGP port then dont get an 8X video card.

Not true, 8X AGP makes VERY little difference.


You need a processor at least twice as fast.

A Sapphire Radeon 9000 is 3 times as fast as a GTS video card. It might be
a good replacement. I run one on an ASUS A7N8X motherboard with an XP2400+
and it runs great.

Hardly. a Radeon 9000 is only ~50% faster, not multiple times. It
would take a minimum of a Radeon 9700 Pro to be 3X as fast.


Dvae

On Sat, 28 Jun 2003 22:12:47 GMT, "grendel"
wrote:

I need to replace my GF2 GTS cause I'm pretty sure it has a heat problem and
plus I'd like to upgrade for better 3D performance in games. I play the
following games. Half-Life and GTA3. GTA3 seems to be very demanding.
Although I do have only an 800 MHZ Athlon and 256 meg of RAM I assume the
slowdown I get in GTA3 is because of a lack of video card performance.
Anyway I'm debating the need for a DX9 video card. If there is not real need
for a Directx9 video card for another year or 2 then I might as well upgrade
to a GF4 ti 200. I'm still a little worried about ATI's drivers and the
stuttering problems I have heard about. I could get an ATI 9700 non pro for
$200 or a nice ti200 for $100.



i had a similar system with a duron 1200 and geforce2 . if you get
this program http://www.tommti-systems.de/main-Dateien/files.html
(you want the 3d analyze v2.16a file)
and select force software T&L it will run twice as fast with no
jerkyness or anything and no loss of image quality that i could
notice.
just another option untill you get a new card.

In 4 months of running 512mb and no swap file in XP Pro, the one and only
'out of memory' I had was a single session with this game. It's got to be
the worst conversion EVER, but I still prefer it as a game to the sequel
(even though VC runs great).

"Zink" wrote in message
...

"kony" wrote :

Uhhhhh, i didn't write that, the OP did.

whoops ^___^

However, it's extremely unusual for any game to need, significantly
benefit from a system having over 512MB of memory.


1 gb of RAM always helps in a game like GTA3 that has ram leaks. Try it !
It
runs very smooth with 1 gb. Of course you need a decent processor and
videocard too.

"kony" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 21:46:22 -0500, "Tiny Tim"
wrote:

It is a waste of time to try to put a cadilac of a video card on an 800
MHz
Processor. Such a motherboard is probably not a 8x AGP. If you do not
have
a 8X AGP port then dont get an 8X video card.

Not true, 8X AGP makes VERY little difference.


You need a processor at least twice as fast.

A Sapphire Radeon 9000 is 3 times as fast as a GTS video card. It might
be
a good replacement. I run one on an ASUS A7N8X motherboard with an
XP2400+
and it runs great.

Hardly. a Radeon 9000 is only ~50% faster, not multiple times. It
would take a minimum of a Radeon 9700 Pro to be 3X as fast.


Dvae

I agree, Tiny Tim is talking ******** about 9000s being 3 times as fast. My
8500 (faster than a 9000) gives about 9300 in 3d mark 2001, and my GF2 Ti
gave just under 5000. Not even twice as fast, but a huge improvement.

To be fair though, I do get 3 times the score in 3d mark 03, but that's
mainly because my GF2 is only allowed to do one test 'cos its DX7!