Budget graphics card

  ivesy 17:52 17 Sep 04
Locked

I have a budget of around £100 for a graphics card capable of running Command and Conquer Generals (amongst others) with out running really s-l-o-w-l-y when the action starts. I currently have an ATI Radeon 9200SE running on a P4 2.6 with 512MB Ram. Any ideas which would be best? I've seen the ATI Radeon 8500 advertised on Ebay for around £65 which compares well with the price shown on a VNU review of £250! ANy ideas?

  Noleg24 19:16 17 Sep 04

try this site click here ...I use them to buy all my PC parts and they are good with prices...you will be amazed at what you find.

  citadel 19:51 17 Sep 04

a fx5700 will be better, don't get fx5700le which is slower.

  Sion 20:22 18 Sep 04

Well, out of the ATI cards in the mainstream range you have a choice of the following cards.

Sapphire 9600XT 128MB - £90 click here

Sapphire 9600 256MB - £70 click here


Sapphire 9550 256MB - £58 click here

As for Nvidia range, then you have a choice of


Nvidia 5700 128MB - £88 click here

Nvidia 5700LE 256MB - £59click here


Personally, if your interested in just getting good frame rates in Command And Conquer, i would go for either the 9600 or 9550. 9600xt is a better card, but if your not intending on playing the latest games, i do not believe you need spend the extra cash. All cards are based on directx 9 technology, so you dont have to worry about them being from the last generation of cards. Here are a couple of links to help you in your decision. This one here click here is from Tom's Hardware Guide, testing the performance of Loadssss of graphics cards playing command and conquer, so u get an idea of the speed difference between them all. And this one here click here is a group test between the 9600pro (which is technically a 9600xt just a few % slower) a 5700 LE, and a 9550 card. If you scroll down the page you can see the benchmarks from a vareity of games. As you will no doubt see, the 5700LE is left behind the 9600pro and 9550 card.

Personally, I would be inclined to go for the 9550 card for £58. IF you look at the second set of benchmarks, the 9550 is only slightly slower than a 9600pro, and although it is not reviewed here, the 9600 card would be around the same speed, but you are saving £12. Anyway, hope this of help to you. Let us know what you get.
Ta Ta.

  BITS&BOBS 21:40 18 Sep 04

Spend an extra £30 it's so worth it, Radeon 9800Pro £134inc vat :click here


You really would be getting double the performance for that extra £30 and you will be able to play games they are meant to be played and also get alot more value to terms of life out of your card, I ve had a 9600XT and upgraded to the Connect 3D 9800 pro my 3DMark03 has gone up from 3800 > 5900 and Doom3 and FarCry play a Dream.


For a bit of reseach just type in 9800Pro reviews in Google and you will see what I mean.

  SEASHANTY 16:02 19 Sep 04

Few more listed here
click here

  Cybermaxx 20:23 20 Sep 04

I agree with Bits and Bobs! Go for at least a standard 9800 with 256 bit memory (PC World sell them for £117), or wait a few weeks and get a new nVidia 6600 AGP version.

I have a 9600XT, and it isn't really good enough for existing games (Doom III, Far Cry etc.). I didn't go for the 9800 because I thought it might be too much for my 250 watt power supply. It might have worked.......

if you suddenly feel like splashing out a bit, how about this one:-

click here

£176 for a 12 pipeline card, with three games thrown in......

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Surface Pro (2017) vs Surface Pro 4

20 groundbreaking 3D animation techniques

How to mine Bitcoin on Mac