Adding second video card

J

jslater25

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 8, 2006
Messages
474
I currently have a Gigabyte mobo that doesn't have any AGP slots. There is one PCIe 16 slot, two PCIe 1 slots and 3 PCI slots. In the PCIe 16, I have an ASUS x850 Pro video card. Its all I could afford at the time, but now its getting rather worn out and I notice BF2 and a few other games seem to be lacking.
Since the games are already pushing the limit of the x850, I can't connect two monitors to the one card and expect the levels to stay where they are. So I thought about buying a PCI video card to help improve my situation a little.
Is it worth buying a GeForce FX5500 PCI card to support a second monitor? Or should I just buy a better PCIe16 card?
 
I'd just get a better PCIe card, but that may be just a personal preference. That X850 isn't getting any younger.

I've never objectively looked at the performance impact of simply having a second monitor plugged in and showing the desktop, but it doesn't "feel" any different or slower to me. Of course, I don't have an X850.
 
I received my new Sapphire x1950XT (256MB) video card yesterday. Maybe its just me, but its not worth the ~$200 I spent. I don't notice any differences in BF2 even after changing the video setting from a custom medium to all on High. Am I missing something?

I installed the right drivers. Resolution is 1280 x 1024 (native for my monitor). I don't really notice anything looking spectacular or visibly different, even in the day to day tasks I do.

To make things worse, the x1950xt is very loud, especially when the fan starts up.
 
What is your CPU? IIRC., the Battlefield games are some of the few titles out there that can actually be restricted by the CPU power.
 
jslater25 said:
To make things worse, the x1950xt is very loud, especially when the fan starts up.
Click to expand...

Definitely, for the x1950xt, assuming you decide to keep it, it's worth the additional $20-$30 to get an aftermarket cooler. The stock one is way too loud.
 
I'd say it's unfortunate you spent $200 on a x1950xt when the 8600GTS cards are now available....
 
Current CPU is an AMD Athlon 64 X2 3800+. The processor might be the hindrance right now, since I didn't realize BF2 used the CPU so much. Good to know. Makes me a little sad my rig is considered slow, since its not that old.
I also have 2GB of RAM (I forget the speed, but its the max speed for my mobo), so that shouldn't be a factor.

Haven't been playing any other recent games lately, although I have dabbled in AA for a bit. I am having a hard time finding something I enjoy, that doesn't cost $50 and a monthly fee. That is one reason I picked up BF2, it was on sale for $15 and there isn't any fees associated with it.

I have seen some previews on tv for some decent shooter type games, but I can't remember what they are. I know COD was fun, but not the game I expected it to be, so I am a little weary of buying COD2. Does 2 follow the same style play of the first?
 
Is BF2 slow in terms of load times or actual gameplay for you? If it is the load times, then worry not, since that is one of the major characteristics of this game: it takes a while even with 2GB of RAM! If it's gameplay maybe you can venture into overclocking your CPU for extra performance. Another thing may be to defrag your hard drive.

As far as CoD2 goes, the gameplay is very similar. The major difference between the two would be the health system. In CoD2, there are no health packs or anything to rejuvenate health. If you get hit, you only need to take cover for a few moments until your screen is no longer red. While this may make the game seem a bit easier, it was still just as much fun as the first and its expansion pack. So if you enjoyed the first one, you should enjoy this one as well. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top