Need clarifications about all new graphics chip names

[jfri]

I consider upgrading my graphics card. At present I have a NVIDIA GeForce4 MX440. When I bought it there was GeForce 2 3 4 and MX variants. Now there are no GeForce 5 or MX variants.So what is the meaning of the GeForce 5200 5600 5700 5900 and radeon 9200 9700 9800 together with suffixes PRO ULTRA XT? How powerfull are they compared to each other? Is there something corresponding to GeForce 5 or MX?My motherboard only supports AGP 4x. How significant is it that I can't use AGP 8x. Will a new graphics card still give me a big improvement in performence.I can mention that at present only two programs make feel that I could need more power. That is FS9 and IL-2 FOB. Other games I run feels fast enough.

[wsieffert]

From my understanding the FX5200 is similiar to the GF4 MX Series. I would visit http://www.tomshardware.com/ and http://www.anandtech.com/ .W. Sieffert

[Guest oyvindhansen]

Budget, you should avoid these for fs: MX, FX5200, R9200Mid level: FX5600, FX5700 (upgraded 5600), R9600, R9600XT, R9800SE (downgraded R9800)State of the art: fx5900, fx5950 (upgraded 5900), R9700 (first generation of ATI's top of the line), R9800 (upgraded 9700), R9800XT (still more upgraded)For all ATI models pro is faster than straight version, XT is newer upgraded versions of pro, and se are downgraded versions.For Nvidia Ultra is fastest and here XT denotes downgraded versions.And a little advice if you are on a budget (or are a sensible buyer): Instead of buing the latest and greatest in the mid-range segment you should reach for slightly outdated models from the top segment such as the 9800Pro 128Mb (current games don't really need 256Mb). These cost between a half to 3/4 of the price of the latest generation, while being only a few percent slower. The mid-range models, however, are only around half as powerful and cost almost as much, sometimes more for "premium" retail versions.And you don't really need AGP 8X.- Oyvind

[jfri]

>Budget, you should avoid these for fs: MX, FX5200, R9200So I should avoid the card I have now (GeForce4 MX 440)meaning it's time to replace it.>State of the art: fx5900, fx5950 (upgraded 5900), R9700 (first>generation of ATI's top of the line), R9800 (upgraded 9700),>R9800XT (still more upgraded)>>For Nvidia Ultra is fastest and here XT denotes downgraded>versions.>A card that has been given very good criticism where I live is acard called MSI FX5900XT. If this is downgraded 5900 is it state of the art or mid price?>And a little advice if you are on a budget (or are a sensibleI am the most expensive cards is out of question.>And you don't really need AGP 8X.>Great no need for replacing the motherboard.

[Guest oyvindhansen]

>>Budget, you should avoid these for fs: MX, FX5200, R9200>>So I should avoid the card I have now (GeForce4 MX 440)>meaning it's time to replace it.Depends, keep it if you are satisfied with it (but I guess you are not...). Most users of these cards find them to be underpowered, and you'll propably have to turn down a lot the sliders in fs.>A card that has been given very good criticism where I live is>a>card called MSI FX5900XT. If this is downgraded 5900 is it>state of the art or mid price?>Difficult question! Nvidia and ATI do what they can to confuse us with their complicated naming schemes. I do not know about this card, but my guess is that it falls somewhere between the two levels. The current top-of-the-line cards derive much of their power from having eight "pipelines" (about to increase to 12 or 16 for the next generation), basically allowing them to do more things at the same time. By comparison the mid-price cards tend to have only four pipelines. Perhaps you should check this spec just to make sure that they are not trying to sell the card for something it is not.Generally speaking I think any card from the mid-segment and up should be sufficient for the moment, but if you spend a little extra on a powerful card the investment will probably be more future proof, especially when you consider the many graphically intensive upcoming (and existing) games.- Oyvind

[jfri]

>two levels. The current top-of-the-line cards derive much of>their power from having eight "pipelines" (about to increase>to 12 or 16 for the next generation), basically allowing them>to do more things at the same time. By comparison the>mid-price cards tend to have only four pipelines. Perhaps you>should check this spec just to make sure that they are not>trying to sell the card for something it is not.>For the FX5900XT card I found this info, it has four pixel pipelines that can handle two textureunits (tmu) each.Could this be equivalent to eight pipelines?I also found another card called Powercolor Radeon 9800 Pro stated to have eight pixelchannels. The price was about 25% more than the FX5900XT. Maybe this is a better choice? >Generally speaking I think any card from the mid-segment and>up should be sufficient for the moment, but if you spend a>little extra on a powerful card the investment will probably>be more future proof, especially when you consider the many>graphically intensive upcoming (and existing) games.>I think much of what we have today will be outdated in the end of 2005 when the new MS OS longhorn comes and the 64 bit architecture is established. So my investment only needs to last about a year and a half or so.

[Guest oyvindhansen]

I disagree. It will take much longer than that for 64 bit computing to become mainstream, and why should it? The 32-bit architecture still have a lot of future potential, and Intel will continue to release faster 32 bit processors for some time still. Also the 64-bit part pertain to the CPU and motherboard, not to the videocard. PCI express will eventually replace AGP, but there is no short term need to replace AGP, which is more than fast enough.As for the release of Longhorn, it shouldn't affect hardware architecture much.If you look back on past videocards the GeForce3 (how many years since that was introduced...) is still a more desireable GPU than the FX5200 (which is only moderately faster than the GF4MX that is again just a small improvement upon the GF2MX, and not a true GF4). The old R9500Pro, basically a crippled R9700 as ATI was to lazy to design a simpler card, is still one of the best buys you can get, if you can find one, that is. My advice still stands, the newest cards in heavy retail packaging are a waste of money, get a R9700Pro, R9800Pro or FX5900 128Mb. It should cost about the same as a typical deluxe version of boards half as powerful.- Oyvind

[jfri]

I thought PCIexpress was supposed to replace the PCI bus by turning the PCI into AGP performence.

[Guest oyvindhansen]

It'll replace both.

[Guest Ali]

Get a 9800 Pro,

[jfri]

>Get a 9800 Pro,

[Guest oyvindhansen]

The 9800 Pro competes directly with the 5900XT's bigger brother, 5900 ultra, so it is probably a better card, but the 5900XT is reported to be excellent value for money. Be aware that the new generation of cards from ATI and Nvidia is only a month or two away, it will probably drive prices further down.- Oyvind