Best card for a sub 2GHz system

M

Mikey20

Gawd
Joined
Aug 21, 2003
Messages
762
What is the best card that this computer can have...."best bang for the buck"

System specs:

P4 1.5GHz / 400MHz FSB
512MB DDR PC2700
17" monitor ( highest res 1024x768) for games
Windows XP Home sp2

This is my friends system and he wanted me to pick out the best card he can get ...card must be below $150.00 ....he is mostly going to be playing HL2 and CS:Source....at the moment the card he has is a gf fx5200 128mb .....can anyone tell me which is the best card for this particular system for HL2? Ohhh also he doesn't want ATI he wants Nvidia because he doesn't wanna have to reformat the hardrive to put in fresh ati drivers ...since he is using nvidia drivers now it makes sense to keep nvidia as his card of choice....

Sooo please can anyone refer me to the best "bang for the buck" card for "his" system to be used for playing HL2

I thought a GF 6600 256mb card would be pretty good for him its only $135.00 + $3.00 shipping! Here is the one im talking about....

http://www.z-buy.com/product.asp?item=VG-N366

BUT!! im not sure if it is the best bang for the buck maybe a fx5700 or a gf 4 ti4200? What do you guys think?
 
Just to give you a heads up, that's a PCI-Express Videocard you're looking at. I doubt your friend could use PCI-Express.
 
FX5700

And you don't have to reformat to switch to ATI, they're programs that get rid of the old drivers without a format. Since really, the best card would easily be a 9800 Pro.
 
Find a new/used/refurb GF4 Ti-4200, 4400 or 4600...any one of the three would be better than an FX 5700.
 
you can pick up a refurbed 9800pro 256 bit at newegg for 154.00

you also can probably find a 9600pro for less than 150 that would be better than the ti 4400 or 4600 and all three of these choices are better than the fx series 9600pro beats the ti cards because of dx 9 compatibility ti cards are only 8.1 dx
 
Ok, let me set you straight on this. A 1.5GHZ CPU isn't going to be THAT big of a bottle neck. I have an AthlonXP 2100 which is a fairly slow CPU by todays standards. I used to have a GF4Ti4600 which is a fairly decent card, but then I upgraded to a 6800GT and DAMN is their a big difference. By big difference I mean Doom3 from 800x600@Medium ->-> 1280x1024@High Quality w/ 4xAA and it STILL runs faster than my old GF4. Sure my CPU is a bottle neck, but I still got 65fps on the VST @ 1280x1024 w/ 8aniso, 4xAA, and max settings! I would go for a 6800GT or if he dosen't have the cash maybe the 6800 NU.

----edit----
Oh I see the card must be sub 150. Hmmm, I would go for the 6600 then.
 
The P4 1.5GHz were the first generation P4s and were very slow. About the equivalent of a 1-1.2GHz P3. I would suggest a Radeon 9800 Pro or 5700 Ultra.
 
KingPariah777 said:
I question your source.
Click to expand...

1.3-2.0Ghz can be a Socket 423 (slow as balls, usually RDRAM boards) P4
1.7-3.6Ghz (or whatever they are now) Socket 478 P4

So his is a Socket 423.

It is widely known that the Pentium 4 does less per clock than a Pentium 3. That being said, in some conditions (not all) The Pentium 4 doesn't reach the speed of a 1Ghz P3 until the P4 hits 1.6Ghz. Sad but true.

That being said. 9600pro is my recommendation.
 
Mikey20 said:
a 9800 pro for a p4 1.5GHz ????? thats major bottlenecking ...
Click to expand...

BOTTLE NECKING IS A GOOD THING!!!

Sheesh... It means in your next rig you have a chance to re-use that gfx card or re-sell it. Why put a shitty gfx card in a shitty computer? At least put something decent with performance enhancing abilities.

~Adam
 
CleanSlate said:
You don't need to, he's right. Experience, I was a "n00b" when it was all the rage/big news.

~Adam
Click to expand...
I had a 1.7 ghz socket 423 for a while...i didn't think it was that bad...it was head and shoulders above my buddies 700 mhz P3...
 
KingPariah777 said:
I had a 1.7 ghz socket 423 for a while...i didn't think it was that bad...it was head and shoulders above my buddies 700 mhz P3...
Click to expand...

Like I said, it depended on what you were doing. I still have 2 - 1Ghz P3s in operation and they are still fast little machines. Obviously maxxed out with 512mb of ram.
 
of course it was, but put it up against a ~1.2ghz p3 and it would be worse or equivolent, meh go figure, one of the reason amd got so popular around the 1.5 ghz time with enthusiasts IMO, p4's were sucking.

~Adam
 
my moms 800mhz P3 seems faster then my 1.3ghz celeron when its running stock ( when I dont OC it ) am I on crack>? LOL :p
 
DR_K13 said:
my moms 800mhz P3 seems faster then my 1.3ghz celeron when its running stock ( when I dont OC it ) am I on crack>? LOL :p
Click to expand...

Heh. It depends on that too. The 1.3G Celeron is a Socket 370 Tulatin processor with 256k cache like the P3. It has a 4-way instead of 8-way cache that slows it down a little bit. The 1.3 Celery and 0.8 P3 should be about the same. If your celeron has less memory (which most celeron computers were skimped on), that would be why.
 
KingPariah777 said:
I had a 1.7 ghz socket 423 for a while...i didn't think it was that bad...it was head and shoulders above my buddies 700 mhz P3...
Click to expand...

A socket 423 p4 1.7 was about as fast as a 1.33GHz T-Bird if I remember correctly. I used to look at benchmarks ALL The time when I first got my t-bird.
 
DR_K13 said:
my moms 800mhz P3 seems faster then my 1.3ghz celeron when its running stock ( when I dont OC it ) am I on crack>? LOL :p
Click to expand...

That's probably because it is. So no, you're not on crack.
 
I vote a 9800Pro for that system too. I had a 2ghz machine with slower pc2100 ram in it and a 9800Pro worked great for a long long time. Since April03 I do believe. And you can't say "I do believe" without saying doobie. ;) :D

Don't put anything Nvidia in it unless its a pre-Ti4600 card or something from the new 6600/6800 line.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top