# Need help from people who are experts in video cards



## Dmitriy (Mar 24, 2002)

Hi. I'm building a new system for my self. I'm almost finished. So far I have AMD 1800+, 512 DDR, Turtle Beach sound card, Soyo case, and other small details (fan, mouse, etc.). I need you advice on a video card. This is a last component I need. I picked two cards and can't decide. 
Which one should I pick?

AOPEN GEFORCE4 TI4200 64MB 4X RETAIL $109 (w/shipping)
http://www.gameve.com/store/gameve_viewitem.asp?idproduct=532&showit=1

or

64MB VISIONTEK GEFORCE3 TI 200 DDR AGP $75 (w/shipping) 
http://www.compuvest.com/engine/default1024.asp?96039

Do you think that I should pay extra $35 for TI4200? Or should I just go with TI200?

You are welcome to suggest another card. Please try not to give advice if you don't know anything about video cards. I will just get more confused.

Thanks in advance for any input.


----------



## MarkA (Mar 23, 2002)

Are you willing to go up a little in price? If so, I'd recommend the ATI Radeon 9500 Pro at $219 list. It will blow away the cards you're considering both in terms of speed and image quality. Possibly stability also, as I've seen some unstable system's with newer nVidia drivers (which aren't WHQL'd - the latest OFFICIAL, FINAL drivers)

Besides, you can find OEM 9500's pretty cheap (comparable prices) that are almost as fast.

Otherwise, I'd go with that GF4 Ti4200. In the long run though, you'd (in my opinion only) almost certainly be happier with a Radeon 9500 Pro even though it is more expensive. It's faster, looks better, and supports more features (It's a DirectX 9 card) so it's more future proof. If you're willing to look at underclocked, OEM cards I'd expect you to find one for not much more than that Ti4200 (and it will still be a much better card)


----------



## Bogy (Mar 23, 2002)

Zac, only you could consider twice as much money to be "a little."


----------



## Mark Lamutt (Mar 24, 2002)

Huh, I find myself in complete agreement with Zac. I agree that the ATI cards are better, and worth the price difference.

Of those cards listed there, I'd definitely go with the 4200.


----------



## firephoto (Sep 12, 2002)

I've heard the geforce cards don't render 2-d images as quick as other cards. I've also heard that the ATI cards are excellent.

Pricewatch vid cards
http://www.pricewatch.com/menus/m37.htm

Newegg ATI OEM RADEON 9500 64MB DDR 8X AGP $137.00 
http://www.newegg.com/app/viewproduct.asp?description=14-102-253&refer=pricewatch
Newegg ATI OEM RADEON 9500 128MB DDR Black $159
http://www.newegg.com/app/viewproduct.asp?DEPA=&submit=Go&description=RADEON+9500

:hi:


----------



## MarkA (Mar 23, 2002)

NVidia's GeForce cards do have repectable 2D performance, though not quite as good perhaps. But their DACs (RAMDACs) are generally not as good which makes 2D image quality (and to some extent 3D image quality) suffer. Add to that the fact their 3D rendering isn't as good, and the fact the ATI card I'm suggesting is a DirectX-9 card and a slightly slowed down OEM version can be had for under $150, and I think the best choice would be an OEM edition of the 9500 Pro.


----------



## gcutler (Mar 23, 2002)

Zac, You've been absent from the Potpouri/Iraq War section at its most robust time. I'm sure you have some points of view worth hearing. And I think we've heard from every end of the spectrum so its not like your opinions are alone over there...


----------



## gcutler (Mar 23, 2002)

Zac, Had a question, How much more does it cost usually to go for a card that does Analog Video Capture (for conversion to Digital VIdeo in hope of making DVDs) instead of the same brand non DV capture capable card. With the external devices that add that feature they average $150-$250, I assume the card price increase for that feature is significantly lower than adding an external device???


----------



## Dmitriy (Mar 24, 2002)

Is this card better than the ones I listed above? http://www.buyxtremegear.com/sapphire910064.html

I just want to buy a card that is inexpensive, reliable, and will last me for a year or two. I don't need the best.


----------



## Chris Blount (Jun 22, 2001)

Gcutler,

I am using the ATI 8500DV which does analog capture. Works very well but your computer needs to be fast to avoid losing frames. It is even possible to play region 2 PAL DVD's and output them to an NTSC monitor. The card does all of the conversion. I paid $185 for the card.


----------



## gcutler (Mar 23, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Chris Blount _
> *Gcutler,
> 
> I am using the ATI 8500DV which does analog capture. Works very well but your computer needs to be fast to avoid losing frames. It is even possible to play region 2 PAL DVD's and output them to an NTSC monitor. The card does all of the conversion. I paid $185 for the card. *


Do you know what the price of the same brand, similar model without the DV cap capability would be?


----------



## MarkA (Mar 23, 2002)

ATI's All-In-Wonder cards have a TV tuner and MPEG2 video capture. They only have one monitor output though (one DVI-I output):

ALL-IN-WONDER 9700 PRO 128MB AGP 100-713001 7-27419-41028-1 $449

RADEON 9700 PRO 128MB AGP 100-434003 7-27419-41032-8 $299

ALL-IN-WONDER RADEON 8500 128MB AGP 100-710030 7-27419-41000-7 $299

RADEON 9000 PRO 128MB AGP 100-433002 7-27419-41036-6 $129

ALL-IN-WONDER RADEON 8500DV (64MB AGP) 100-710002 7-27419-40959-9 $199

RADEON 9000 PRO 64MB AGP 100-433001 7-27419-41034-2 $99


Those numbers are from ATI's website. The All-In-Wonder (I have a 7500) cards are great, but I simply must say they aren't a great capture solution - I much prefer the results I get running video through my DV camera. The quality is better. That said, I do use it for capture and it works well. It's much better though for watching TV / HTPC usage. Also note that the 8500 cards are faster than the 9000 cards (though they're VERY close. The 9000 really should have been named something like the 8400 - it got a higher number as it came out later). The 8500DV is a little different from the others because it has a FireWire port on the card, and it uses a silicon tuner instead of a traditional tuner. The traditional tuner is generally agreed to provide a little better image, and it's not as buggy (ATI used the silicon chip tuner to save space so they could add the FireWire).


----------



## James_F (Apr 23, 2002)

Yea keep recommending buggy drivers. 

ATI great hardware, bad drivers. :bang


----------



## MarkA (Mar 23, 2002)

What's the most recent ATI card/driver set you've used. I haven't had a single tiny problem since ATI Catalyst 2.5 (they're on 3.2 now). Not only that, I don't know anybody else with a problem. I also DO know nVidia owners (not many) with problems with the latest drivers. Also, you can't forget that it's been quite awhile since nVidia released WHQL drivers, they're latest official drivers are NOT WHQL (and I think I know why... But since I can't prove it I won't say anything. All I'll say is compare screenshots from 3DMark 2003 between GeForce FX and Radeon 9700. There's something suspiciously WRONG with the rendering of the GeForce FX, IMHO.)

BTW, when I said the silicon chip tuner was "buggy" I wasn't refering to the drivers. The tuner is more sensitive to problems with the signal, and has a harder time for many people. There are many reports of this (though I haven't seen it personally). These reports aren't out there for the traditional Philips tuner. Perhaps I should have said the traditional tuner isn't as picky about signal, not buggy.


----------



## James_F (Apr 23, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Zac _
> *What's the most recent ATI card/driver set you've used. I haven't had a single tiny problem since ATI Catalyst 2.5 (they're on 3.2 now). Not only that, I don't know anybody else with a problem. I also DO know nVidia owners (not many) with problems with the latest drivers. Also, you can't forget that it's been quite awhile since nVidia released WHQL drivers, they're latest official drivers are NOT WHQL (and I think I know why... But since I can't prove it I won't say anything. All I'll say is compare screenshots from 3DMark 2003 between GeForce FX and Radeon 9700. There's something suspiciously WRONG with the rendering of the GeForce FX, IMHO.) *


I have a ALL-IN-WONDER RADEON 8500.

Having the latest drivers is never smart for stability reasons. I agree with the GeForce FX drivers, but the GeForce 4Ti are rock solid.


----------



## James_F (Apr 23, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Zac _
> *BTW, when I said the silicon chip tuner was "buggy" I wasn't refering to the drivers. The tuner is more sensitive to problems with the signal, and has a harder time for many people. There are many reports of this (though I haven't seen it personally). These reports aren't out there for the traditional Philips tuner. Perhaps I should have said the traditional tuner isn't as picky about signal, not buggy. *


I know you weren't, but you should. If ATI could get some better drivers, I'd recommend them in a second, but I don't like the stability.


----------



## Dmitriy (Mar 24, 2002)

Zac (Mark), is radeon 9100 a good card?

http://www.buyxtremegear.com/sapphire910064.html


----------



## MarkA (Mar 23, 2002)

What drivers are you running on your AIW 8500 James? What else is on your system. Something needs updated. Download CAT 3.2, MMC 8.1, the latest drivers for your sound card, Windows Media 9 codec (Needed to install MMC 8.1) and any MS Critical Updates you need and tell me if you still have a problem. I'm betting not. Like I said, I haven't had a single problem since Cat 2.5, and the only problems I had before that were minor glitches - nothing stability related. (Unlike the GeForce 2 I replaced which crashed quite often - on WHQL drivers none the less. Which aren't even out anymore). We can't forget the last WHQL release from nVidia was 08-Nov-2002. The last official release was 03-Dec-2002, and is not WHQL. ATI's latest release is 13-March-2003 and IS WHQL.

I don't know why you're having stability problems, but it probably ISN'T driver-related as the drivers are extremely solid for me and everyone I know with an ATI card (which is more than can be said for the nVidia cards... Though not much. They're drivers are too bad either. Still, would be nice if they'd actually release WHQL drivers so we know they're not pulling any dirty tricks to sacrifice rendering quality for speed).

Dmitriy, it's just like a 9000 only faster. It's not as fast as that Ti4200 you're looking at... Still, image quality will be great and at $68, it could most definitely be a great option for you. Depends on what your needs are. It's a better card than that GeForce 3 and it's cheaper... Tempting if you're not demanding much out of your card.

Also, James - do you have the 8500DV? Because of the radically different design (and a design ATI promptly scrapped...) There are people for whom that card has been NOTHING but trouble (not for very many people, but some have had endless headaches from it - FAR more people absolutely love it because it's completely and truly the most featured multimedia card around). But that's not really the driver's fault. The hardware causes problems in some systems. It should never have been released, really.

Also, are you overclocking any portion of your system? That can hurt stability pretty badly.


----------



## James_F (Apr 23, 2002)

Overclocking, You know I have a Dell


----------



## Dmitriy (Mar 24, 2002)

My last question. Zac, is this card (8500) http://www.knowledgemicro.com/detail.php?p=AT-RN8500&c=pw better than this (9100) http://www.buyxtremegear.com/sapphire910064.html ?


----------



## MarkA (Mar 23, 2002)

No, because that isn't an 8500 - it's an 8500 LE. I'd get the 9100 Sapphire if you're looking one of these low-level cheap cards.

"Zac, You've been absent from the Potpouri/Iraq War section at its most robust time. I'm sure you have some points of view worth hearing. And I think we've heard from every end of the spectrum so its not like your opinions are alone over there..."

Read the responses to my occasional post (such as the one about CompAtlanta), and you'll see it's implied I'm not welcome in the Potpourri forum


----------



## gcutler (Mar 23, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Zac _
> *Read the responses to my occasional post (such as the one about CompAtlanta), and you'll see it's implied I'm not welcome in the Potpourri forum *


If your talking about the E-bay thread? I think your mistaking a little teasing for unwelcomed. The heat that has been generated about the war threads makes any disagreements anyone has had with you look pretty minor. Unless you feel that posting won't accomplish anything (which is a valid point) but that hasn't stopped most of us from continuing to post


----------



## MarkA (Mar 23, 2002)

"If your talking about the E-bay thread?"

"The heat that has been generated about the war threads makes any disagreements anyone has had with you look pretty minor."

I dunno...

"Unless you feel that posting won't accomplish anything (which is a valid point)"

Correct, that is mainly how I feel.


----------



## Dmitriy (Mar 24, 2002)

Thanks Zac and everyone else who helped.
I just ordered this one http://www.cnetpc.com/productinfo.asp?item=VG-ATR9100


----------



## MarkA (Mar 23, 2002)

You're welcome. I hope it works well for you!


----------

