|
||||||||
|
CowboySlim wrote:So much for EPox. I wouldn't touch anything without website support.
dodecahedron wrote:CowboySlim wrote:So much for EPox. I wouldn't touch anything without website support.
good point, 'Slim.
i want to spend as little as possible. (money is tight now what with the baby and all..)
since i'm not really into gaming i don't need a powerful card.
originally i was thinking of replacing the fan on the card. but since i happened to see that EPoX card in that online-store's homepage and saw it was rather cheap ($55) cheaper than i had thought, i thought might as well, it's passively cooled so it'll be quieter (i'm sick of the noise).
having said that, a friend told me that he was surprised how much better the 2D graphics of a Radeon 9800 Pro card he's got than the integrated graphics on his motherboard. so if i were to leard that there is a marked differece in 2D quality and hi-res text clarity, i might push it a bit and spend a bit more on the card than i'd originally intended.
Sapphire Radeon 9800 Pro costs here roughly $330 (incl. tax) way out of my budget
Boba_Fett wrote:The ATI Radeon 9550 and the ATI Radeon 9800 should have the same 2D quality. I didn't even know there were any more advancements to be made in that category anyway.
dodecahedron wrote:Boba_Fett wrote:The ATI Radeon 9550 and the ATI Radeon 9800 should have the same 2D quality. I didn't even know there were any more advancements to be made in that category anyway.
i don't think there were any advancements per-se, just better implementation or better circuitry perhaps.
Bhairav wrote:Better RAMDACs, better filter circuitry etc..
dodecahedron wrote:Bhairav wrote:Better RAMDACs, better filter circuitry etc..
does that translate into better text clarity / 2D graphics quality ?
Bhairav wrote:Get the Radeon 9550 or Radeon 9200. 2D is top notch, and they will serve you well.
dodecahedron wrote:Bhairav wrote:Get the Radeon 9550 or Radeon 9200. 2D is top notch, and they will serve you well.
the 9250 as well?
i live in Israel and have no experience with Ebay, and no time to learn about it etc. i'd rather not start messing with that.
LoneWolf wrote:Yep, you should. 128-bit is the way to go. A 64-bit memory bus can be especially limiting at higher resolutions.
dodecahedron wrote:LoneWolf wrote:Yep, you should. 128-bit is the way to go. A 64-bit memory bus can be especially limiting at higher resolutions.
limiting what? 3D performance? that's a minor consideration for me.
all the low-end cheap Radeon cards i see are 64-bit, even though i know there are 128-bit versions.
should i prefer an Nvidia FX5200 over Radeon 9250/9550 then since the FX5200 is 128-bit?
like i said, my main consideration is good clear text at high (1600x1200) resolution and reasonable refresh rate (>=75).
Even 2D performance can be limited in some cases at high-res, such as if you use complex images in Photoshop, Indesign, or other apps that have a fair amount of redraw. I'm sure I'm being picky, but one other thing to consider is this: If you are planning on having Windows Longhorn on this machine (when it becomes available), this bandwidth may also be necessary to support the new GUI, which will require more graphics power than previous OSes from Microsoft. Something to consider.Bhairav wrote:dodecahedron wrote:LoneWolf wrote:Yep, you should. 128-bit is the way to go. A 64-bit memory bus can be especially limiting at higher resolutions.
limiting what? 3D performance? that's a minor consideration for me.
all the low-end cheap Radeon cards i see are 64-bit, even though i know there are 128-bit versions.
should i prefer an Nvidia FX5200 over Radeon 9250/9550 then since the FX5200 is 128-bit?
like i said, my main consideration is good clear text at high (1600x1200) resolution and reasonable refresh rate (>=75).
Yep, limiting 3D performance, NOT 2D. Go for the 9250, I think it will be ideal..
Han wrote::-k You've chosen wisely.
Return to General Hardware Discussion
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest
All Content is Copyright (c) 2001-2025 CDRLabs Inc. |