Suitable replacement for GF4200

1398342003 · Post by **1398342003** » Mon Dec 22, 2003 12:02 am

Since I am becoming increasingly annoyed at my geforce 4200 128MB due to random freezing in most resolutions above 1024*768 except 1280*1024 with color set to 16bit, AAx2, AFx0. I want to replace it, obviously with a Radeon 9X00.

The 9200 (with TV out) is about 130$ Cad ($150 after crappy government tax) but obviously has the worst performance.

The 9600 XT is about 280$ Cad ($320 with taxes) but doesn't match up to the 9800 range of cards.

The 9800 Pro 128MB is about 410$ Cad ($470 including tax) good performance while keeping cost loosly in mind.

------

Also, from a cooling perspective which would be easiest to cool quietly, the 9600XT or the 9800Pro?

/EDIT I have also seen the 9200 without TV out for $80-$90, a version with VIVO, and a 256MB rendition for $180. Neither appeals to me. (BTW what's VIVO?)

Lifecycle · Post by **Lifecycle** » Mon Dec 22, 2003 1:41 am

Last week, I replaced my faulty Ti4600 with an 9600pro Ultimate and I have been pleased with it. It isn't much of an upgrade but certainly isn't (noticably) any slower than my old Ti4600, in fact, at higher resolutions with AA and anisotropy turned up, it's noticably faster (and most importantly, has no fan!).

The only real difference I saw between the 9600pro and the 9800 series is that the 9800 is much faster at top resolutions (1600x1200+) with AA on. If you can live at playing at 1024x768 or 1280x1024 with 2x/4x AA for most games, then the 9600pro will be great. I think it's a superb card if you're a light-moderate gamer. If you really must play at 1600x1200 4x AA then get a 9800 series card but personally, for the amount I play games, I don't think it's worth it. YMMV, of course.

The 9600pro also doesn't kick out much heat, making it a good candidate for being passively cooled (you can also get passively cooled 9800pro's too, although they are more pricey).

Bear in mind also that the 9800 non-pro is also a very good buy at the moment. The difference between this card and the pro version is probably no more than 5-10%, yet the price difference is around 25% more. You pay diminishing returns the further you go up the scale.

I think it's quite tricky just from reading reviews and benchmarks to decide - 99% of hardware sites are just full of BS (SPCR excepted, of course!) and are always vying for the most powerful cards regardless. I try keep in the back of my mind: "sub 30 fps is weak and probably unplayable, 30-60 fps is OK but may be a bit choppy with heavy action, anything over 60 fps is ideal." When you read reviews, just keep this in your mind and don't read the usual waffle going about how one card beats another (even if that card is only scoring 20 fps verses 15 fps - both are unplayable!). What they don't tell you on reviews is that in practice, 5-10% difference between cards is unnoticable. Even 25% isn't necessarily that noticable, unless you're dropping under 30fps.

If you're not bothered about noise (!) or fancy a modding challenge, then seriously consider looking out for GeForce FX5900's (non-ultra, 400/850). These have 256-bit memory interfaces and the regular versions are clocked pretty high. I think they are being phased-out, but if you can find them they offer very good performance. Similar speed to a 9800pro but even cheaper than a 9800 non-pro. Downside is that they kick out a lot of heat.

Either way, I'd steer clear of the 9200 and I don't think you'll be disappointed with a 9600pro, particularly if you don't like the idea of dropping almost $500 on a video card (or having to sneak the purchase past your wife/girlfriend!)...

1398342003 · Post by **1398342003** » Fri Dec 26, 2003 7:07 pm

I don't mind putting $500 on a video card, and I'll stay away from the 9200. I haven't been able to find a good store locally that sells the 9800 non-pro. (I don't regard Powercolor cards as real cards. Bad name for pimpin.) The poorist of the 9800 series I could find is the 9800 Pro with 128 MB.

I also want a 9800 because I like running 1600x1200 with AA and AF, the only reason I can't right now is the random freezing if my settings are not just right.

Is the fan on the 5900 thermally controlled? My computer is running on chilled air, and the fan's speed may be drastically reduced if it is.

As an example of how cold it is in my computer my northbridge is 11°C and my 85 watt Barton is running at 35°C under load. (heatsink is in sig)

mormakil · Post by **mormakil** » Sat Dec 27, 2003 3:28 am

Where are you running your computer??? Do you use gloves when playing games?

1398342003 · Post by **1398342003** » Sat Dec 27, 2003 7:19 pm

I have a duct from the outdoors to my computer, but my room stays at the house ambient even with the door closed. My room seems to be a heat magnet.

PS. Sometimes gloves would be nice, but usually I'm fine without.