Recommendations for a good cheap AGP card?

[kbdrate]

I'm currently using an old 64MB GeForce2 MX 400. I can only run darkplaces at 800x600 and any time there are a lot of explosions it really lags.

Instead of turning down the resolution or turning off lighting effects, I would rather upgrade my video card. (I also play quake3 and I'd like to at least play at a decent frame rate for doom3 and quake4).

Is anyone using a GeForce FX5500 256 MB card with darkplaces? I see it's $40 after rebate on newegg. This computer is getting old for a gaming machine since it doesn't even have PCI express. I'm looking for a cheap card to hold me over until I find a good deal on hardware that's sufficiently faster than my current setup.

If anyone knows of another Nvidia card that's cheap I'd love to hear about it. Unfortunately, ATI isn't an option for me because their driver support is poor.

Current system:
AMD Athlon 1350 MHz (not Athlon XP)
512 MB RAM
GeForce2 MX 400 64 MB AGP
plenty of hard drive space with 7,200 RPM drives
21" CRT monitor

I use 1024x768 or 1280x1024 screen resolution normally but I like to play games at 1600x1200 if possible.

[Grim]

I still have the agp on my computer. I'm slowly buying parts to build an up to date computer.

I do read a bit and I do most of my research on Toms Hardware. He's doing segments on video cards right now. He's actually through part 2.

Graphics Beginners' Guide, Part 1: Graphics Cards



The only thing I could find on a card close to yours is the 7600GT Graphics Card Quiet: Gigabyte's Silent-Pipe II Cooling. He has benchmarks on almost everything.

There's even a nice writeup on some of the top video cards. Summer 2006 GeForce 7 Graphics Gear

Tom's is a good place to get some of those questions answered on a good variety of harware.

[kbdrate]

Are you specifically looking for a card that has 256?

Nope, but it looks like it's a bigger issue than I expected.

I was looking for a card with 128 to 256 MB vram. If it had > 8 pixel pipelines, all the better. Same with a later revision of OpenGL support or 128 vs 256 bit memory interface. I wanted a fast core clock and didn't care as much about the memory clock. (It turns out I probably should have been looking for a high pixel pipeline rather than memory speed/interface).

I ended up getting an Nvidia 7600GS 256 MB AGP with 12 pixel pipelines, OpenGL 2.0 support, 400 MHz core clock, 800 MHz memory clock, and 128-bit memory interface. It's more expensive than I was planning on but I found it cheaper than the PCIe version which is rare.

I talked to a couple different people about what I should look for. I want high resolution in terms of screen size but I'm not too dependent on how detailed the textures are. I need a high frames per second because I'm very sensitive to that.

After talking to a few people, they told me this about graphics cards (which may not be 100% accurate):

• Pixel pipelines determines how fast data can be processed and rendered. You can make up for a slower core/memory clock with more pixel pipelines.
• Core clock is a factor in your frames per second. This is where the OpenGL computations are done. It's dependent on the pixel pipelines though for how much work it can do per cycle.
• Memory clock is too but not as much. This determines how fast textures are loaded into and out of memory.
• How much RAM it has determines how detailed of textures you can load. You don't need 512MB with today's games. And by the time you do, that card will be too slow to be useful.
• OpenGL version support matters because if your card doesn't support the feature then software has to do it. However, like the amount of RAM, it's unlikely that games today will utilize the latest OpenGL specs because older systems would have to use software to compensate.
• Memory interface size relates to the memory clock and is important in determining how much data can be moved at once.
• PCIe is better than AGP (and cards usually cost less) but I didn't want to upgrade.

I just now found this on wikipedia:

A formula that some experts use to measure cards that run on different bitrates and clock rates is to take the memory clock and multiply it by the bits per clock and divide by 8. A card that has 400 mhz memory and a 64-bits would appear to be faster then a 250 mhz memory and 128 bit. However using the formula, the first card has a rate of 3.2 gigs compared to 4.0 gigs for the second.

I got a Nvidia 7600 GS (12 pixel pipeline, 256 MB, 400 MHz core, 1000 MHz memory clock) = (800 MHz * 128-bit interface) / 8 = 12.8 Gbs

I could have purchased a Nvidia 6800XT (8 pixel pipeline, 256 MB, 350 MHz core, 1000MHz memory clock) = (1000 MHz * 256-bit interface) / 8 = 32.0 Gbs

But this is misleading because that only refers to loading things into and out of memory. It doesn't take into account the work done by the card in the OpenGL calculations. So while I cannot load extremely large textures quickly as a 6800XT, I can probably run more complicated games or higher frames per second because the core clock is higher and there are more pixel pipelines.

Knowing what I know now, I would probably have ranked things in this order:

• Amount of RAM - if I can't load the graphics, it is useless. 128 is probably enough but 256 is comfortable.
• Pixel pipelines - because overclocking doesn't help with this
• Memory interface size - get 256-bit since it affects the texture loading per cycle
• Memory clock - how often operations can load/unload data into memory. This is usually 2x the core clock. I can always overclock it.
• OpenGL revision number. If a game requires a feature and my card doesn't support it, then software (my CPU) has to do the work. Since it's underpowered, I don't want this to happen. But anything requiring OpenGL 2.x is likely to be just eye candy and not fps or detail.
• Core clock - how many OpenGL calculations can be done. This isn't as big of an issue for me because my computer is the bottleneck. I can always overclock this.

[Grim]

Are you specifically looking for a card that has 256?

[foq]

I'm just saying this is a cheap solution that will last you.
edit: PVT42KUDE3 version:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814150157

[kbdrate]

3. It's a 256-bit memory interface. I dont know what exactly this means but I suppose it's faster.

I saw in the newegg comments that it's actually 128-bit but the company falsely states it is 256-bit.

Newegg re-listed this card as a 256 bit memory interface and XFX's website does state that. However, when going to this products page and checking the specifications please look at the listed memory bus. The memory bus on this card is 128 bit and that also is clearly stated. The PVT42KUDE3 model is listed as a 256 bit memory bus. There is a reason this card is priced cheaper than the PVT42KUDE3 version.

When you take into account this is a 128-bit memory interface, there are lots of other cards to consider.

Since newer computers are coming with PCIx instead of AGP, I'm going for a cheap AGP ($50 or so) and then I'll upgrade to an expensive PCIx later.

[foq]

My geforce 7950 gx2 has 48 pixel pipelines. It costs $600 though....

Rich bastard
I still reccomend the 6800 I posted elerier. (hey, that's close to 7000!!)

[Monster]

Yes, I would recommend the geforce 5500 fx, it can run all of those games with decent framerates on medium-high quality. I had a 5200 fx before, and it ran doom3 pretty well on medium quality..

[Monster]

My geforce 7950 gx2 has 48 pixel pipelines. It costs $600 though....

I have an old ATI RAGE 128 64mb video card I want to sell. It worked well on unreal tournament, it couldnt run quake 3 however for some stupid reason...

[Baker]

Yellow No. 5's Texture Pack (download), a older version. Has a lot of QRP in it, but also has a number of things Yellow took from other texture packs.

The teleporter texture isn't in that. I think I got that from Pez's Aerowalk set (in Downloads) or somewhere else. I can't remember.

[foq]

Also, as a warning:
Woulda'nt reccomend overclocking this baby. I'm sure she gets hot enough as she is. My current video card (Nvidia geforce FX 5200 ultra, 325 GPU, 650 MHz DDR RAM clock) gets a little hot.

Edit: Hey Baker, where'd you get that texture pak? Looks sexy...

[foq]

Only under 130. It's going to be mine at christmas time and it's going to last me for a long time.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814150163
edit: why buy this over a cheaper card? Because:
1. GPU clock is 350. The GPU clock speed competes with PCI Express clock speeds.
2. The RAM clock is... holy shit... 1GHZ!! (or, for you techies, 1000MHZ, 24 MHZ short of a REAL GHZ.)
3. It's a 256-bit memory interface. I dont know what exactly this means but I suppose it's faster.
4. Opengl 2.0. You normally see opengl2.0 on Pci Express cards.

Technically, this is one of the top-of-the-line 256mb AGP cards out there. It will serve you well in days to come. Even when video games start requireing 256mb cards, because of this one's insane memory clock speed (GDDR3) and the fast, but not quite the fastest GPU speed, it will perform well.

Edit again: While most PCI express cards have 16 pixel pipelines, this has 8. 4 pixel pipelines = slow... 8 pixel pipelines = more bandwidth (which = more efficant)... 16 pixel pipelines = for rich bastards jk

[Baker]

I'm using a GeForce 2 and get an excellent frame rate. If you want to get a new video card, go for it but the following thread I explain how I get really high performance from DarkPlaces --- even with my card --- for deathmatch.

http://www.quakeone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1123

But, of course, I'm not using RTLights and bloom and other things that give a thick atmosphere when playing single player.

But it still was better than vanilla Quake by a large margin.